Jump to content

Jack Ryan

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

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

Jack Ryan -
Space Merchant -
65
2005

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

This comes from the final talk at the Birmingham, AL Convention. Herd talks kind of low and there is some background noise, so here is a transcript starting at about 1:25.

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

I thought this was interesting because it doesn't appear to be in the talk outline. Admittedly, I just skimmed through the outline quickly, so it might be in there. Either way, there is something twisted about comparing the shunning of children to casting out demons from heaven.

Edit: For those wondering, this talk is from August 5. The part before when the transcript starts is Herd talking about King Asa removing his grandmother from her position.

Share this post


Link to post

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Jack Ryan said:

something twisted about comparing the shunning of children to casting out demons from heaven.

There would be as demons are not children.

Bit difficult to understand such a distorted and short clip. But on the point, I dont think this could be referring to "children" literally as it seems unlikely that these would be "disfellowshipped"? More clarity needed on this matter.

Share this post


Link to post

That’s funny because during the recent court case in Canada regarding shunning, that the org bragged about winning, their lawyers flat out lie with this line :

"As far as their family members are concerned, normal family relations continue with the exception of spiritual fellowship."

Share this post


Link to post

Clip from the Supreme Court of Canada Case on November 2, 2017 involving the Jehovah's Witness Organization vs. Randy Wall. What this lawyer says is an utter lie. They do shun (even though they clearly don't want to admit it) and it does affect the family relationship in every way. Young people have been kicked out by their parents, spouses have divorced and siblings have cut off ALL contact not just "spiritual" contact. The entire coverage of this hearing can be seen here:

    Hello guest!

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Gone Away said:

But on the point, I dont think this could be referring to "children" literally as it seems unlikely that these would be "disfellowshipped"?

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

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Jack Ryan said:

They do shun (even though they clearly don't want to admit it) and it does affect the family relationship in every way.

Must be your experience? Wow! You're all living in some sort of dimensional time warp;...........or I am.....I'm convinced of this. And it's not just you, it's a load of other posters on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, JW Insider said:

This "child" is at least 18.

That's better. I was living on the street at 16 after experiencing "Catholic disfellowshiping" for not playing by the rules. I knew that wasn't right because I wasn't even a member!

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Gone Away said:

That's better. I was living on the street at 16 after experiencing "Catholic disfellowshiping" for not playing by the rules. I knew that wasn't right because I wasn't even a member!

Wow! I think you should find a Catholic discussion forum and bash that religion for a few years.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Wow! I think you should find a Catholic discussion forum and bash that religion for a few years.

? Why waste energy??? There are legions at that already!!

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, SuziQ1513 said:

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Anna said:

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

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

3 hours ago, Anna said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

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

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

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

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

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

Share this post


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

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

WT magazine quote:

"The religious ties he had with his family change, but blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings continue." source: 

    Hello guest!

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

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

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Anna said:

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share this post


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

This comes from the final talk at the Birmingham, AL Convention. Herd talks kind of low and there is some background noise, so here is a transcript starting at about 1:25.

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

I thought this was interesting because it doesn't appear to be in the talk outline. Admittedly, I just skimmed through the outline quickly, so it might be in there. Either way, there is something twisted about comparing the shunning of children to casting out demons from heaven.

Edit: For those wondering, this talk is from August 5. The part before when the transcript starts is Herd talking about King Asa removing his grandmother from her position.

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

Share this post


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

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

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

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

Share this post


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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have changed what you first said, to what you personally think you should do. Firstly you said a child should be shunned. Now you are saying that you have the right to shun. Two totally different things. Of course you have the right to do as you wish, but do you have the right to make rules for others ? I ask you has Jehovah given you that right ? 

I think you might just be an elder the way you misuse scripture.

The Matthew 10 scripture surely is aimed at a family in which some accept the JW version of the 'truth' and some bitterly oppose it.  

Something strange in my ex congregation. A woman is a sister and has been for many years. Her husband is not interested in the 'truth' from the JW Org. However the husband goes to all the friendly gatherings of his wife's group and is well accepted. Isn't he as bad as a disfellowshipped person ?  Surely he is bad association if he does not want to know about God and God's purpose ? But because he has never been a JW he is allowed and accepted to be part of the gatherings. 

I find it amusing your comment about if a family member was a Child Abuser. And this is where i think you are an elder. Your concern is only about that he might drag down the reputation of the congregation.. You say you would shun him, but you do not say you would report him to the police or outside authorities.... This below was someone else's comment on the previous page. Think about it.   

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

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

How true this is, so why oh why did the GB withhold so much information from those secular authorities ?  Maybe everyone should shun the Governing Body ? 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

.etc. I sound stupid to myself because making so many variables. Don't you think the same Anna?

I simply think that it would be unreasonable to expect a family that lives together, as a family unit, to ignore one another. A family unit has a basic structure and this structure should be unaffected, otherwise it would become a dysfunctional family unit, and nobody wants that. When the children leave, then they set up their own family unit. They are no longer a unit with their mom and dad and siblings, and can do whatever they want in their own family (regardless where they live, but usually they will live separately from the original family unit). So really there is only one variable.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Anna said:

I simply think that it would be unreasonable to expect a family that lives together, as a family unit, to ignore one another. A family unit has a basic structure and this structure should be unaffected, otherwise it would become a dysfunctional family unit, and nobody want's that. When the children leave, then they set up their own family unit. They are no longer a unit with their mom and dad and siblings, and can do whatever they want in their own family. So really there is only one variable.

Anna, there are so many different families living in so many different ways that the GB has no right to give blanket orders as to what a person should or should not do. Where grandchildren are involved, old parents involved, so many different things.  

I still say that Jesus said we should 'Love our enemies and pray for them'. So why would Jesus want us to ignore or shun our families ? 

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

one of the dangers or fears was going to be whether or not the name or position of one of the perpetrators was going to be revealed.

But hearing this, and knowing how the brother who told me was deeply concerned that the truth not come out, I wondered the same thing. I thought maybe it should come out. (Per Ephesians 5:10-13)

Not long ago we had a situation in our congregation with a brother who was addicted to prescription drugs to the point where he got in serious trouble with the law. The nail in his coffin came though when he decided to come to the meeting for FS when the CO was here, inebriated. Yes, you read correctly. Anyway, the brothers wanted to take him home, short of manhandling him to stop him from driving off,  but they didn't succeed, so the CO and another brother followed him in their car to make sure he got home safely.  On the way, the inebriated brother managed to mount the sidewalk and crash into a traffic light post. Thankfully no one was hurt. But what I found curious was that the CO quickly made sure all our literature was out of that brothers car before the police arrived.

My husband and I later discussed this and realised that this was a good example of the mentality we have, to always give the appearance that we are morally on a higher ground, have the cleanest buildings, best equipment, perfect little families etc. (I recalled when you gave the experience of Bethel not wining the first place in cleanliness award (or something like that) and how one of the brothers was extremely upset about it).  It is no wonder then that we get dishonest when things are not quite so. But on a much more serious note, as you mentioned, it also causes us to cover over things that should NOT be covered over, such as child abuse. 

It is a heavy burden "carrying the utensils of Jehovah" and yet being riddled with the imperfections that plagues every single human being on earth.

It would be nice if one day we can be candid, open and honest about our failings. I think we are trying, in an indirect way. The last WT lessons pointing to the failings of Moses and Aaron and others shows that no one is exempt, not even those in leadership roles. And of course we know the "Slave" has put in print that they make mistakes (no kidding xD). But this mentality, that we have a reputation to uphold, regardless whether actual reality is different, is deeply ingrained.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

there are so many different families living in so many different ways

True, but I only pointed out one way that actually applies to our discussion. The classic family unit, where children, whatever age, are still subject to their parents. That is where disfellowshipping will have this affect: "The religious ties he had with his family change, but blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings continue."

That is what we were discussing on here wasn't it?

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Where grandchildren are involved, old parents involved, so many different things.  

Yes, so many different things. Which means that each person has to asses their unique situation and act accordingly. It is up to each individual in the end, the GB cannot make you do anything.

 

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, Anna said:

But what I found curious was that the CO quickly made sure all our literature was out of that brothers car before the police arrived.

I've heard of this type of thinking. My father was the presiding overseer when a wayward Witness was running around with a group that that got arrested for committing an armed robbery. My father called the Society's Service Department in Brooklyn for advice, and our Circuit Overseer called him back shortly and asked, in effect: "How quickly can you get him disfellowshipped?" To my father, this meant, how soon could you make contact with the arrested man, and ask the kind of questions that would allow this "fallen" brother to admit that he had recently been repeatedly committing sins without a proper level of remorse. Also, I think even in those days, my father would have to arrange for another "servant" in the congregation to be secretly listening in on the line.

As I recall the idea of acting on this so quickly kind of fell through anyway. Even though this was around 1970, I was 13, and it didn't occur to me at the time that this was really not just. At that time, we were still saying that a disfellowshipped person would die at Armageddon by default. Another case like this, I recall from another congregation happened around 1978, and another one I was told about (unconfirmed, though) from just a few years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Anna said:

(I recalled when you gave the experience of Bethel not wining the first place in cleanliness award (or something like that) and how one of the brothers was extremely upset about it).

This was a Bethel "Family Night" (kind of a variety show with talented brothers showing their skills and with a couple of experiences). An older longtime Bethelite had been in charge of a clean-up before a city inspection of factories in this area of Brooklyn. The Squibb Pharmaceutical factory got a first place award and Bethel's printing factory came in second place. (Which is actually really amazing considering the cleanliness required of a pharmaceutical company compared to the much lower bar required of a printing factory.) When Brother Schroeder and Brother Gehring heard this in rehearsal, they whispered to each other and Brother Schroeder talked to the brother. I couldn't really tell if the brother was extremely upset, but he looked concerned as if getting some negative counsel.  I was a few seats away and couldn't hear them. At the actual Family Night presentation, the brother who gave the experience changed it to "Both Squibb and the Watchtower each received a rating of 100 percent!!" The difference would have been striking to anyone who attended rehearsal which included about 50 people.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I still say that Jesus said we should 'Love our enemies and pray for them'. So why would Jesus want us to ignore or shun our families ? 

We can love our disfellowshipped families and pray for them. There is a point obviously at which we will not ignore family. But that is left up to each person's discretion, since they know their situation, and the other person,  better than anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Anna said:

I simply think that it would be unreasonable to expect a family that lives together, as a family unit, to ignore one another. A family unit has a basic structure and this structure should be unaffected, otherwise it would become a dysfunctional family unit, and nobody wants that. When the children leave, then they set up their own family unit. They are no longer a unit with their mom and dad and siblings, and can do whatever they want in their own family (regardless where they live, but usually they will live separately from the original family unit). So really there is only one variable.

Thanks for respond. But i am not sure do you support idea that family members are stopped to be bond/connected with family bonds/ties, blood if they go to live somewhere else??

This idea promoted by WT not sound reasonable, not have common sense, and in fact generated what you very well described as;  

"it would become a dysfunctional family unit"

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Thanks for respond. But i am not sure do you support idea that family members are stopped to be bond/connected with family bonds/ties, blood if they go to live somewhere else??

This idea promoted by WT not sound reasonable, not have common sense, and in fact generated what you very well described as;  

"it would become a dysfunctional family unit"

Yes it is a mess caused by the GB inventing things 'beyond the things written'.  When i was still a brother it was announced from the platform that one of our daughters was 'no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses'. This daughter was actually acting as a foster parent to a child which was born to one of our other daughters, so it was a deeply involved situation. I made it known to everyone that i would not shun my daughter who was no longer a Witness because she needed our help in many ways. The GB should not make these blanket rules which only put burden on people shoulders. 

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

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

When I first wrote that the point of this OP is not new and that a DF'd child should be shunned, I meant that this has been part of standard "policy" and therefore it is not an entirely "new point" that any Witness should be surprised at. I was also saying it's a rule that was evidently influenced by a different type of economic situation where children immediately moved away from the "roof" of their parents as soon as they could get steady employment. You have probably read some of the early discussions about disfellowshipping of family members in the Watch Tower publications and realize that the "rules" tend to map to the typical middle-class Anglo-American style of homelife that Bethel writers often imagined as an ideal target audience. What Brother Herd was saying was nothing totally new; we've said for years that children should be shunned.

So that was the context of my post that you questioned. But I thought you were putting it in a different context, where you were asking me personally if I thought that shunning a child could ever be "authorized" or scripturally defended. And to those questions I answered that there could be circumstances where shunning a child could be the right thing to do, personally, although I do not think that most shunning that goes on among us is thought through. For most of us, it's a congregational decision following a set of rules reinforced bureaucratically from a central legalistic authority: the WTS. But in reality each of us stands on our own. In this regard none of us should be under any central authority except God and Christ. We should not shun because we are told to shun. Even in the Corinthian congregation, Paul expected that a majority would rebuke this particular man, given the circumstances. He did not expect 100 percent agreement about the way a "disfellowshipped" person was treated. Note the words I highlighted when I quoted this verse above:

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

Note also that Paul didn't expect to be the central authority for the Corinthian congregation, but that he would follow their lead in this matter. As they saw fit to forgive, Paul would obey their lead.

I think a lot of Witnesses would see another phrase in that passage as the one to highlight where Paul says "also I write to ascertain the proof of you, whether you are obedient in all things." A lot of Witnesses would see this as a congregational directive from a central authority like Paul or the apostles or a "governing body." But looking at it in the context of what Paul is saying here and several times elsewhere in 2 Corinthians, he is really saying that we should NOT get caught up in any hard fast rules that are inflexible and unbending. The overriding rule to be obedient to "in all things" is the fact that Jesus is the true Head watching over the congregation, and Jesus taught us to be forgiving. Satan wants us to forget that and lose our "fellow feeling" lose our "humanity" lose our "natural affection." And trying to legislate love and forgiveness is a sure way to lose touch with the entire idea of Christ's love and Jehovah's undeserved kindness. If we are only following rules instead of a desire to imitate Christ, then we are being overreached by Satan.

At any rate, this was my point, that we should not be expected to shun just to follow the rules imposed upon a congregation. We shun when it is appropriate, and the Bible tells us that there are times when this is appropriate. But it is our personal conscience telling us what we should do. Just because Lloyd Barry shunned Theodore Jaracz doesn't mean the rest of us should have, as it was probably based on the idea of Matthew 18 or 2 Thessalonians 3. When something is well known in a congregational setting then it is probable that many individuals will decide what to do, and most will do the right thing. If 5 people out of 100 are shunning a man for some reason, this does not necessarily the rest should. Even if a majority of a congregation has shunned someone this does not necessarily mean that the rest should either. (And I suppose this could occur in cases where family bonds should override the majority for certain individuals, too.) Shunning is a "rebuke" meant to say that Christians in the congregation do not approve of the way the conduct might reflect on the teachings of Christ. The reputation of the Christian congregation is the same thing, or should be. The congregation should reflect the teachings of Christ the Head. I know you thought I was overly concerned with the reputation of the congregation, but this is a scriptural concern, too. Note that in the same or adjacent context of how the Corinthians were handling an infamous case of incest, it appears that by not "shunning" the wicked one, it was giving the impression that the Corinthians were proud of putting up with such a thing. But just following this is another verse that appears to also speak to reputation:

  • (1 Corinthians 6:3-6) . . .Then why not matters of this life? 4 If, then, you do have matters of this life to be tried, is it the men looked down on in the congregation whom you assign as judges? 5 I am speaking to move you to shame. Is there not one wise man among you who is able to judge between his brothers? 6 Instead, brother goes to court against brother, and before unbelievers at that!

Yes, this idea gets abused, so that in some churches, even murderers and extortioners and other criminals find sanctuary, and child sexual abusers have been hidden and shuffled around in these same churches. Unfortunately even in our own congregations certain such crimes have been hidden. I don't condone this. Crimes are for the government to punish, those who hold the sword. But the civil matters can surely be adjudicated by wise trusted brothers who could at least do as well as the TV-star "Judge Judy" and her ilk. (You might actually be surprised at how many such "cases" are worked out through congregational elders.) Of course, what's a "civil" matter in some countries might be a "criminal" matter in another country: adultery, for example. The "superior authorities" of Romans 13 have that say, unless they are overstepping God's rulership.

By the way, I don't mean to imply that shunning is only for the reputation of the congregation, looking at it from the outside. There are insiders looking at the reputation of the congregation, too. And another reason has nothing to do with reputation, directly, and that is the need to keep the congregation clean. The "spirit" or attitude of an entire congregation can be influenced, and specific individuals in the congregation could be improperly influenced. "A little leaven spoils the whole lump of dough." "One bad apple..." "Bad associations spoil useful habits." etc.

Note that in Revelation 2 and 3, that the congregations reported directly to Jesus as Head as to whether they properly shunned the teachings or prophecies of certain ones affecting those congregations.

Again, I'll repeat that our method of shunning can be based on our own personal conscience as individuals. But there is nothing unscriptural about it. There may be something unscriptural about the way many of us go about it, however.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Sometimes, to do the "right thing" ... you have to suffer GREAT personal injury, loss of livelihood, your home, your family, or even have to die.

Sometimes you have to do that thing which is abhorrent and against all natural ingrained inclinations ... AND THINK!

Dying is easy to do for your faith, losing your money and real estate is harder to do, as there is no glory in it.

Dying for your faith is an instant "free pass". OTHER people will clean up the mess.

Losing your money, your comfortable job,  and your real estate is embarrassing ... and HARD.

That is why we have the current policy of chopping off the babies head when it cries.

It does not require any real thinking, and we STILL sleep warm at night in a soft bed.

Because we know that ... no matter WHAT we do .... the free money keeps rolling in.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

... like at the famous "Battle of Little Big Horn" when George Armstrong Custer's  army troops were being massacred by the Indians, while firing his last bullets he turned to the Indian Scout beside him, and said  "What are we going to do NOW, Scout?"

The Scout replied  "What you mean WE, pale face?"

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

For most of us, it's a congregational decision following a set of rules reinforced bureaucratically from a central legalistic authority: the WTS. But in reality each of us stands on our own. In this regard none of us should be under any central authority except God and Christ. We should not shun because we are told to shun.

well said!

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

If we are only following rules instead of a desire to imitate Christ, then we are being overreached by Satan.

This sentence said the same thing, as one Bible scripture, what in fact, is going on; “The Evil One controls the whole world.”—

    Hello guest!
. nwt and all religions too. WTJWorg is not exempt. If somebody want to claim how WTJWorg is not under satan influence then he/she not believe in this Bible premise/statement/conclusion. 

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

We shun when it is appropriate,

From time to time, people are hurting each other. Some solve it by talking, some with a quarrel, some with silence. All these methods are known to the human spirit. If our friend stopped talking to someone, maybe we would stop talking as well. Is this good or not, we can discuss, but it happened. On other hand, as you highlighted, shunning on command is out of mind.  

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Just because Lloyd Barry shunned Theodore Jaracz doesn't mean the rest of us should have

But if someone is Lloyd's close friend .......:))))

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Even if a majority of a congregation has shunned someone this does not necessarily mean that the rest should either.

But hey, where is unity then ??:)))))

 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Sometimes, to do the "right thing" ... you have to suffer GREAT personal injury, loss of livelihood, your home, your family, or even have to die.

Sometimes you have to do that thing which is abhorrent and against all natural ingrained inclinations ... AND THINK!

Dying is easy to do for your faith, losing your money and real estate is harder to do, as there is no glory in it.

Dying for your faith is an instant "free pass". OTHER people will clean up the mess.

Losing your money, your comfortable job,  and your real estate is embarrassing ... and HARD.

That is why we have the current policy of chopping off the babies head when it cries.

It does not require any real thinking, and we STILL sleep warm at night in a soft bed.

Because we know that ... no matter WHAT we do .... the free money keeps rolling in.

The problem with JW Org is the thing taught is Not To Think. Just Obey.  Don't ya know that the GB are the 'faithful slave' they get all the communications direct from God. They gotta b right en it.  That's how it taught. 

Don't think about what you can celebrate and what you can't because we will TELL you what to celebrate and what not to.

Don't think about how to do the ministry because we will TELL you how to do your ministry. 

Don't think about who you can talk to or mix with because we will TELL you who you can talk to and mix with.

Don't think about what clothes to wear because we will TELL you what clothes to wear.

Well I think you might just get the idea from those examples.

The thing that the GB hates is if congregants start to think for themselves. Because that's when the GB starts to lose their hold over people. They lose a little bit of power and control every time someone thinks for themselves. 

That's why people get disfellowshipped for asking too many questions. Oh dear that's 'causing a division in the congregation'. Disfellowship them. Off with their heads.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, AllenSmith34 said:

The word “SHUN” is an antagonistic word. It only has true meaning in a worldly society that doesn’t understand between having people sin to a point, it merits scriptural discipline. Keeping the congregation clean is certainly NOT shunning. Within that word, you have different variations to suit the needs of individuals, and families. A DF’d family member will not receive scriptural enlightenment if that person continues in their worldly ways. What would be the point to accept the behavior of those that go against Gods laws? 1 Corinthians 5:11-13

 

What love for thy brother does one show when human intervention is blinded by sympathy rather than have your brother change course and repent? Hebrews 10:27-29

 

Those that think it’s heartless, reject Gods purpose for correcting humanity to a more disciplined unit of faithful Christians. What’s the advantage to stay complacent? Humanity would have learned nothing from Christ and millennia of suffering.

 

What people seem to forget, with our personal human emotion, we are responsible to God himself in everything we do? If we are subject to discipline, we brought that upon ourselves. Regardless of how personal one might feel. EXCLUSIVE devotion is demanded by God for a true Christian.

 

Does that mean, there won’t be certain communication with a DF’d member, of course not, there will be some reasonable kind of communication that doesn’t affect an active member from causing their congregation to suffer as a unit.

 

Therefore, the optics of the word SHUN is wrongfully applied by opposers. A father and son construction team won’t find themselves at odds when it comes to, work. What they will find at odds is if the son is DF’d, and he wishes his father, listen to him trying to undermine the fathers Christianity. At that point, the father would do right to distance himself from the son.

 

This scenario can be applied to many conditions. 2 Corinthians 6:14 Does that mean some brothers STOP communicating with certain family members? YES! Depending on what kind of culture we were brought up with, a father and mother might never talk to a daughter or a son that has become gay or lesbian. That’s a PERSONAL CHOICE they have made. Because their culture might be strong enough to reject such a change. Therefore, how can a child that has made such a change, not influence the daily Christian life of a faithful member, if the parents see God’s law broken by their children’s action? 1 Corinthians 6:18

 

How about alcoholism, drug addiction, kleptomania. How many here have invited such a person to their home. Especially a home where there are children and have no worries that these people won’t be a bad influence or steal something to continue with their addiction. Even if it’s a family member.

 

How about hanging around with people that are guilty of adultery, fornication. Having extramarital affairs. What good will come of it, if someone decides, that’s an exciting lifestyle? Who wins then?

 

Therefore, understand what the parameters are with the word SHUN, that will benefit you, and allow you to see things more clearly, instead of talking points with personal stories that have no relation to the word honesty.

 

Agree if prostitution, spousal abuse, child abuse, thief, murderer, reviler etc. seems reasonable, enough not to have people removed to keep a congregation clean. Of all the listed possibilities, which one can be acceptable because human nature dictates it? 1 Corinthians 5:11

 

This is what the world offers, and it’s simple to succumb to its influence. It goes beyond what the word SHUN is to people that think there is a middle ground because human emotion demands it. 1 John 2:15-17

 

Contrary to popular belief, no priest can absolve you from sin on Sunday so people can have a fresh start on Monday. Therefore, where does the real love for thy brother lay, if thy brother refuses to repent? 2 Peter 2:20-22 what will be gained by a mistaken sympathy of your fellow man that has known God and rejected him?

 

Therefore, no one can say, it isn’t out of the ordinary that some cultures SHUN people or family members out of their own volition without there being any scriptural application attached.

 

No misinformation or mischaracterization will EVER change that!

 

Therefore, certain courts are hypocrites for trying to impose on something ordinary people do anyway without biblical bias!

 

Spoken like an elder or puppet of the GB.

This is my personal case : I left the Org after doing three months research into the Child Abuse accusations Earthwide in the JW Org. In my opinion the GB were responsible for most of it and the elders just acted as puppets for the GB. I could no longer see the GB as the 'faithful and discreet slave class' because of their actions and instruction to others. "By their works you will know them"... 

I did not spread any message in the congregation, so I did not cause division. I emailed as many elders as I could and told them I was 'resigning' from the JW Organisation. This does not mean I was or am turning against God or Jesus Christ. I just left the JW Org. ... 

The elders didn't ask me for a reason, they just called me in to 'do the paperwork'.  I had to sign a copy of the email that I'd sent which one of them had printed. 

Prior to me 'resigning' I had told a few 'brothers' that i intended to resign, not giving them a full explanation... This was so that those people that mattered to me would know I had not been disfellowshipped for sinning against God... 

Now we all know that the GB has told all elders how to announce it only one way from the platform. So and so 'is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses'. This is a deliberate ploy so that everyone will SHUN that person. No one would know if the person left of their own choice or was disfellowshipped for 'wrong conduct'. So of course no one would then speak to such a person. Total shunning.

Even those that knew I was 'resigning' do not speak to me. I repeat total SHUNNING. 

Why ? Not because of anything I've done, but out of fear of the elders and the thought of themselves being disfellowshipped. 

I am strong enough to cope and have a good wife. I can cope. Many cannot cope, they suffer badly.

But of course to the American mind, of which most of the GB are, it is just collateral damage... The same as is the Child Abuse victims. 

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Paul expected that a majority would rebuke this particular man, given the circumstances. He did not expect 100 percent agreement about the way a "disfellowshipped" person was treated.

Just wondering if this is the right slant here. It would seem your suggestion is that there is a majority, not unanimous. view in the congregation that this man was deserving of exclusion.

Could it not be read that the descriptive "majority" is actually a reference to those NOT engagaged in the immoral conduct as contrasted with the "minority" who were?

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, AllenSmith34 said:

The?? word?? ?“SHU?N?” is an? antagonistic word. It only has true meaning in a ?worldly so?ciety t?hat d?oes?nÂ’t???? understand between having people sin to? ?a poi?nt, it merits scriptural discipline. Keeping? th?e congr?egation clean is certainly NOT shunning.???

I'm afraid not according to the "life and ministry meeting work book"Screenshot_2018-09-24-17-23-39-1.png 2017-06-08

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

The thing that the GB hates is if congregants start to think for themselves. Because that's when the GB starts to lose their hold over people. They lose a little bit of power and control every time someone thinks for themselves. 

I won't deny that there are some congregants who do not think for themselves and prefer to have someone else think for them. But that is not the objective of the the GB. I can't see how that would be to their advantage. They want our trust and cooperation, yes, but what personal advantage is it to them if they have "power and control" over people? They believe they are going to leave the earth and live in heaven in the near future. They are just doing their job they feel they have been assigned by Christ, which is to get the kingdom message preached, and keep the congregations morally and spiritually clean. There is nothing sinister behind that.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Anna said:

They want our trust and cooperation, yes, but what personal advantage is it to them if they have "power and control" over people?

Then... they cannot be fired by anyone on Earth, and revolt is completely suppressed ... and no matter WHAT they do, or don't do ... the free money keeps rolling in ... and they never have to get their hands dirty, or miss a meal, or sleep cold, or wear worn out clothes.

This not in the slightest bit unusual, when religions have LOTS and LOTS of real estate.

It is ho-hum normal.

We are NOT the exception.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Then... they cannot be fired by anyone on Earth, and revolt is completely suppressed ... and no matter WHAT they do, or don't do ... the free money keeps rolling in ... and they never have to get their hands dirty, or miss a meal, or sleep cold, or wear worn out clothes.

This not in the slightest bit unusual, when religions have LOTS and LOTS of real estate.

It is ho-hum normal.

We are NOT the exception.

I think there are easier ways to ensure you don't get your hands dirty, miss a meal, sleep cold and wear worn out clothes. We have quite a number of brothers in our hall that have done just that. (Done pretty well for themselves).

Oh, and they can't get fired either as they are the owner of the business ?

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Anna said:

I think there are easier ways to ensure you don't get your hands dirty, miss a meal, sleep cold and wear worn out clothes. We have quite a number of brothers in our hall that have done just that. (Done pretty well for themselves).

I was referring to the GB, not the folks at the bottom.  They at the bottom have absolutely no say or valued opinions whatsoever, and therefore not the same reprehensibility. 

Think about the backgrounds of the GB .... they are all old men who if they were not doing what they do now ... what else COULD they do to survive in the "real" world, outside of free money, and LOTS of it?

They could not economically survive of their own devices, is my best guess.

Instead of reading scripture, it would be "You want fries with that?", or "Welcome to Wal-Mart".

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I was referring to the GB, not the folks at the bottom.  They have absolutely no say or valued opinions whatsoever, and therefore not the same reprehensibility.  Think about the backgrounds of the GB .... they are all old men who if they were not doing what thay do now ... what else COULD they do to survive in the "real" world, outside of free money, and LOTS of it?

I know who you were referring to. And I was saying there are easier ways to achieve the same. I mean would you really want to live your life knowing you are responsible for 8 million people? I certainly wouldn't. Not even for a Rolex watch.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Think about the backgrounds of the GB .... they are all old men who if they were not doing what thay do now ... what else COULD they do to survive in the "real" world

Come on, use your imagination, they weren't always old. They could have done anything, but they chose to do full time pioneering, and not always under the best circumstances. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

You assume much about how choices and the job market really works, grasshopper!

I guess you  are assuming they had no other choice but to do full time service when they were young.

And don't call me grasshopper or I will set my spider on you! ?

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, Gone Away said:

Just wondering if this is the right slant here. It would seem your suggestion is that there is a majority, not unanimous. view in the congregation that this man was deserving of exclusion.

Paul's letters to the Corinthians provide many real-congregation examples of ideas that did not have full agreement behind them. The factions for Cephas, Paul, Apollos, superfine apostles, and concern for who baptized whom, for example. The disorder amongst congregants regarding taking turns when speaking, teaching, interpreting etc. The talk of Paul's advice sometimes being rejected. Paul's words about sects coming in so that the approved will be more easily made known. etc.

Even here in the context, Paul had just compared ALL [in the congregation] in a way that showed a sensitivity to the potential for exaggeration. As Holman translates the previous verse:

    Hello guest!

    Hello guest!
    Hello guest!
    Hello guest!
,
    Hello guest!
    Hello guest!
    Hello guest!
    Hello guest!
    Hello guest!
    Hello guest!
    Hello guest!
exaggerate
    Hello guest!
    Hello guest!
.

And in the next verse, the wording is just as careful with a word telling us that it was "many, but not all"--more specfically, a majority.

The possibility for your suggestion is there, but it's not the most straightforward or most likely reading. It requires the creation of an ambiguity which is not necessary as there are clearer ways of stating what you suggest. These kinds of ambiguities are always possible --and I don't think anything in the original Greek would forbid that understanding-- but when we rely on the least likely meaning too often, it smacks of "special pleading."

There are some online commentaries available for this verse, and I've never seen one that that attaches the meaning you suggest. Although I don't doubt that one might exist.

    Hello guest!

Another way to look at it is that even if this particular verse means "all the rest of the congregation who were not involved in the immorality," or something like that, the basic point about individual shunning (as opposed to full congregational shunning) is still very likely even without the support of this verse. The quotes from Matthew 18 (and in some cases, even 2 Thess 3) can show that even just one individual may be involved in the shunning of one other individual. No reason to try to get others to join as it could be a matter between the two of them.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

not the most straightforward or most likely reading

Nevertheless, possible. I've never been one for what seems the straight(forward) path always, as it can often be the opposite, with an undesirable outcome. However I will acept that there could  be some in Corinth who did not share Paul's censure of that man's wrongdoing  in view of the  earlier tolerance.  

Share this post


Link to post

@Jack Ryan Unfortunately Expelling and Shunning Commands do exist and it is based on what has been entrusted to the church by means of the Christ, of which is later practices by those who had authority over the church, examples being Apostle Paul. Such goes by other names being Herem Censure and or the Takfir, excommunication, etc. Only ONE form out of the Three practices of Expel/Shun command is correct, and only a FEW Christians are aware of this and practice such while others use the TWO other incorrect forms.

This is why you have people today calling Paul a lair, not knowing the origin of such practices of which the early church taught, and we have those ignorant of this small bit of information, as if Armstrong and or anyone who knows this information well makes it any clearer.

 

Even outside of religion, such is in practice.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

@Jack Ryan Unfortunately Expelling and Shunning Commands do exist and it is based on what has been entrusted to the church by means of the Christ, of which is later practices by those who had authority over the church, examples being Apostle Paul. Such goes by other names being Herem Censure and or the Takfir, excommunication, etc. Only ONE form out of the Three practices of Expel/Shun command is correct, and only a FEW Christians are aware of this and practice such while others use the TWO other incorrect forms.

This is why you have people today calling Paul a lair, not knowing the origin of such practices of which the early church taught, and we have those ignorant of this small bit of information, as if Armstrong and or anyone who knows this information well makes it any clearer.

 

Even outside of religion, such is in practice.

No disrespect but i do wish you would keep the topic on the Jehovah's Witnesses only when the topic is such. 

There is no point telling what other 'religions' do, or what the outside world does. Surely you would know that the JW's are supposed to be 'no part of this word' and should not be influenced by anyone other than God and Jesus Christ, and the Bible.  

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

No disrespect but i do wish you would keep the topic on the Jehovah's Witnesses only when the topic is such. 

There is no point telling what other 'religions' do, or what the outside world does. Surely you would know that the JW's are supposed to be 'no part of this word' and should not be influenced by anyone other than God and Jesus Christ, and the Bible.  

I have been keeping on topic, anything in regards to excommunication is of expelling/shunning command, to which I ask you of what it is I am off topic about.

When one studies religion it is easy to point out their Christology, their beliefs, practices and so forth, mainly when it comes to the Abrahamic Religions and so forth, understanding the mindset and or views of others, on the other side of the spectrum, actually practices as that are not Christian  like.

I know who they are, even challenged one and understand where they are coming from, granted I have been studying religions, as I had informed to you before.

When one is no part of the world, they do not adhere to traditions of men and or bad made holidays spoken of to be of Christ when it is not. You do not align yourself with any side expect God's, you are to respect authority but never allow authority to overrule God's Rule, and if civil disobedience has to be done, it has to be in the Christian way, not the other ways it is done by false ones.

Above all else, God is above all and everyone, we take his command seriously, as well as the command of his son, Jesus, to which he had entrusted his command to those who take up the church, for it is all connected.

That being said, when Jesus commanded and or given ability to bind and loosen, you should know what that entails regarding the church. Therefore, it should not be unknown to anyone what expelling aka excommunication and shun command means, and which out of the 3 forms is correct, whereas in reality only 1 form is correct and practiced by FEW Christians. 

When Jesus gives command of something, and or that of his Father, we do not follow it half way or accept half, we take it up in full and be committed to it, as done by those before us and those to come after us.

 

And yes, the Bible, Matthew 16 is a good chapter to read.

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, Anna said:

I know who you were referring to. And I was saying there are easier ways to achieve the same. I mean would you really want to live your life knowing you are responsible for 8 million people? I certainly wouldn't. Not even for a Rolex watch.

Well on religious statistics side of things, I think you lot are around the 8.45 million mark, possibly 8.5 million.

For me I prefer solar powered watches over any watch. At least no one would be trying to take it from you like a fresh pair of new Jordans.

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/24/2018 at 3:06 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

This idea promoted by WT not sound reasonable, not have common sense, and in fact generated what you very well described as;  

"it would become a dysfunctional family unit"

I think we may be understanding what "family unit" means differently.

family unit - Collins English Dictionary.

(ˈfæmlɪ ˈjuːnɪt)
noun
sociology
a
    Hello guest!
group traditionally consisting of
    Hello guest!
and
    Hello guest!
the traditional family unit of mother, father and two children

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Anna said:

I think we may be understanding what "family unit" means differently.

family unit - Collins English Dictionary.

(ˈfæmlɪ ˈjuːnɪt)
noun
sociology
a
    Hello guest!
group traditionally consisting of
    Hello guest!
and
    Hello guest!
the traditional family unit of mother, father and two children

Yes, yes, in technical terms, in mathematics way of explanation we can say that.

If one potato living basket he is not part of that basket. But he is still potato grew up in the same pot/peace of soil and got the attributes of his family. So practicality, spiritually and by genetic he is part of that very family. If they don't want talk to each other that is their problem. Such "detail" (about their dis-functionality) is not reason to reject the indisputable fact how they belong to each other by blood. And have all legal and human obligations to each other by the both laws, God's and Terrestrial. :))) 

One of fundamental law is to have conversation. And NOT to ignoring other by silence. Ok, when you are angry you will not speak for awhile, but angry must stop before sun goes down, :)))))) Bible said, haha  

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Yes, yes, in technical terms, in mathematics way of explanation we can say that.

If one potato living basket he is not part of that basket. But he is still potato grew up in the same pot/peace of soil and got the attributes of his family. So practicality, spiritually and by genetic he is part of that very family. If they don't want talk to each other that is their problem. Such "detail" (about their dis-functionality) is not reason to reject the indisputable fact how they belong to each other by blood. And have all legal and human obligations to each other by the both laws, God's and Terrestrial. :))) 

One of fundamental law is to have conversation. And NOT to ignoring other by silence. Ok, when you are angry you will not speak for awhile, but angry must stop before sun goes down, :)))))) Bible said, haha  

You do not need mathematics and or complex and sound equations to know what a Family Unit is.

I'd also like to say, someone can be part of your family even though they are not of blood, example, adopting a child, taking in a pet, etc.

You can be a billionaire, and have everything in the world, money can replace anything in the house, however, money cannot replace family members, for if one ceases, such one cannot be replaced, be it man or beast.

The verse you are looking for is Ephesians 4:26, which reads: Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger,

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/30/2018 at 3:22 AM, Space Merchant said:

I'd also like to say, someone can be part of your family even though they are not of blood, example, adopting a child, taking in a pet, etc.

Well said. And If JW parents adopt some non JW baby, after several years son/daughter get baptized as JW and after some time stop to be JW by diss or dfd. Then what would happen? This adopted child would be abandoned and ignored by foster family. What a beautiful life !?     

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Well said. And If JW parents adopt some non JW baby, after several years son/daughter get baptized as JW and after some time stop to be JW by diss or dfd. Then what would happen? This adopted child would be abandoned and ignored by foster family. What a beautiful life !?     

This is where you fail here, Srecko Sostar, I pointed this out because you yourself think the family unit is of blood only, has nothing to do with JWs, but if your heart wants to make it as such, anyone who is subjected to anything that results in grounds for excommunication, all church ties are cut.

At least if you are not going to go about on your own word, do not make the obvious shift and or change.

Anything in relation to Excommunication/Expelling still stands be it of blood relative and or adopted one, for church ties be it restored and or cut effects anyone.

That being said, I admire your effort and attempt, but no cigar. If you forget what you said and as to what I made a response to, re-read everything you posted prior to this response.

 

Also we have yet to see where you are getting Mathematics from, of which remains to be.... Unseen.

Share this post


Link to post

  • Similar Content

    • By James Thomas Rook Jr.
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
      Posted by Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. on November 9, 2019 at 4:20 am  
      The Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments Thursday in a lawsuit against a religious congregation’s “shunning” practice, but the congregation and several other groups contend the justices had no right to even take part in the case.
      Randy Wall, a real estate agent, filed the suit against the Highwood congregation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization in Calgary, Alberta.
      Wall was expelled from the congregation for getting drunk and not be properly repentant, court records said. He pursued an appeals process through the Jehovah’s Witnesses then went to court because he said the Witnesses’ “shunning” — the practice of not associating with him in any way — hurt his business.
      He explained his two occasions of drunkenness related to “the previous expulsion by the congregation of his 15-year-old daughter.”
      A lower court opinion said: “Even though the daughter was a dependent child living at home, it was a mandatory church edict that the entire family shun aspects of their relationship with her. The respondent said the edicts of the church pressured the family to evict their daughter from the family home. This led to … much distress in the family.”
      The “distress” eventually resulted in his drunkenness, Wall said.
       
      Wall submitted to the court arguments that about half his client base, members of various Jehovah’s Witnesses congregations, then refused to conduct business with him. He alleged the “disfellowship had an economic impact on the respondent.”
      During high court arguments Thursday, the congregation asked the justices to rule that religious congregations are immune to such claims in the judicial system.
      The lower courts had ruled that the courts could play a role in determining whether or not such circumstances rise to the level of violating civil rights or injuring a “disfellowshipped” party.
      The rulings from the Court of Queen’s Bench and the Alberta Court of Appeals said Wall’s case was subject to secular court jurisdiction.
      A multitude of religious and political organizations joined with the congregation in arguing that Canada’s courts should not be involved.
      The Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms said in a filing: “The wish or desire of one person to associate with an unwilling person (or an unwilling group) is not a legal right of any kind. For a court, or the government, to support such a ‘right’ violates the right of self-determination of the unwilling parties.”
      Previous case law has confirmed the right of religious or private voluntary groups to govern themselves and dictate who can be a member.
      But previously rulings also reveal there is room for the court system to intervene when the question centers on property or civil rights.
      The Association for Reformed Political Action described the case as having “profound implications for the separation of church and state.”
      It contends the court should keep its hands off the argument.
      “Secular judges have no authority and no expertise to review a church membership decision,” said a statement from Andre Schutten, a spokesman for the group. “Church discipline is a spiritual matter falling within spiritual jurisdiction, not a legal matter falling within the courts’ civil jurisdiction. The courts should not interfere.”
      John Sikkema, staff lawyer for ARPA, said: “The issue in this appeal is jurisdiction. A state actor, including a court, must never go beyond its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court must consider what kind of authority the courts can or cannot legitimately claim. We argue that the civil government and churches each have limited and distinct spheres of authority. This basic distinction between civil and spiritual jurisdiction is a source of freedom and religious pluralism and a guard against civic totalism.”
      He continued: “Should the judiciary have the authority to decide who gets to become or remain a church member? Does the judiciary have the authority to decide who does or does not get to participate in the sacraments? Church discipline is a spiritual matter falling within spiritual jurisdiction, not a legal matter falling within the courts’ civil jurisdiction. The courts should not interfere. Here we need separation of church and state.”
      The Alberta Court of Appeal, however, suggested the case was about more than ecclesiastical rules.
      “Because Jehovah’s Witnesses shun disfellowshipped members, his wife, other children and other Jehovah’s Witnesses were compelled to shun him,” that lower court decision said. “The respondent asked the appeal committee to consider the mental and emotional distress he and his family were under as a result of his duaghter’s disfellowship.”
      The church committee concluded he was “not sufficiently repentant.”
      The ruling said “the only basis for establishing jurisdiction over a decision of the church is when the complaint involves property and civil rights,” and that is what Wall alleged.
      “Accordingly, a court has jurisdiction to review the decision of a religious organization when a breach of the rules of natural justice is alleged.”
       
                     
    • By Jack Ryan
      I'm a 21 yo PIMO on the West coast. My family and I attended a wedding this past Saturday and I was completely disgusted by my family's and congregation's behavior.
      The couple that got married are both studies, so they didn't get married at the Kingdom Hall. However they requested an elder to give the wedding ceremony talk (and I call it a talk because it was 95% scriptures and 5% about the couple) and they invited mostly JWs aside from their families.
      Everything was going pretty well, until about 40 min after the ceremony. I just finished eating when my dad whispered to my brother and I that we had to leave because there was a DF'd woman that was invited. I sincerely apologised to the couple for leaving because I felt awful that I had to play along with all of the invited JWs and awkwardly leave the wedding so soon.
      Once my family was in the car, I asked my dad who the woman was. He revealed to me that it was the groom's mom. Apparently a couple of elders went and talked to her and asked her to leave. She refused, so they let her know that we'll all be leaving.
      I was shocked and appalled at the insanity of the situation I found myself in. This couple isn't even baptised and they invited more JWs than family to their wedding only to have them all leave because the groom's mom is in attendance. To top it all off, the brothers afterwards were saying stuff like: "I can't believe that she could be that selfish" and "Aw that poor couple, because of ONE person, everyone had to leave. She totally ruined their wedding".
      The indoctrination is insane in this cult, of fucking course the groom is going to invite his own mother to his wedding. I can't believe that I'm expected to feel offended at the mother for refusing to leave her son's wedding. I really hope that the newlyweds see this as crystal-clear evidence that this is a cult.
      - Contributed
      --------------------------------
      Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbor to him who fell among the robbers?"
      He said, "He who showed mercy on him."
      Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise... Unless they're dfed then leave em to die."
       
      --------------------------------
      Their actions are codified as follows:
      *** w81 9/15 p. 30 par. 23 If a Relative Is Disfellowshiped . . . ***
      "There is no point in looking for some rule as to family members being at gatherings where a disfellowshiped relative might be present. This would be something for those concerned to resolve, in keeping with Paul’s counsel. (1 Cor. 5:11) And yet it should be appreciated that if a disfellowshiped person is going to be at a gathering to which nonrelative Witnesses are invited, that may well affect what others do. For example, a Christian couple might be getting married at a Kingdom Hall. If a disfellowshiped relative comes to the Kingdom Hall for the wedding, obviously he could not be in the bridal party there or “give away” the bride. What, though, if there is a wedding feast or reception? This can be a happy social occasion, as it was in Cana when Jesus attended. (John 2:1, 2) But will the disfellowshiped relative be allowed to come or even be invited? If he was going to attend, many Christians, relatives or not, might conclude that they should not be there, to eat and associate with him, in view of Paul’s directions at 1 Corinthians 5:11."
      No rule given LOL, gotta love Watchtwer's constant plausible deniability wording.
    • By Jack Ryan
      A Norwegian JW woman, who was sexually abused, was disfellowshipped for fornication. The woman first appealed inside the organization - without success. Feeling injustice, she then decided to sue Jehovah's Witnesses. The court decided last month that the disfellowshipping was against the Norwegian law and must be canceled. The court also ordered the local Jehovah's Witness organization to pay 100 000 NOK to the woman.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. is the story, in a Norwegian newspaper.
    • By JOHN BUTLER
      I do find it kinda' funny that JW's love to talk about billions of people being removed / destroyed / killed / murdered at Armageddon. Billions of people.
      And for what ? Well JW's say it's for not serving God. But they will also say it's for not being a baptised JW. 
      Well we do know for sure that God either deliberately had, or deliberately allowed, the destruction of Jerusalem in circa 70 C E, and for what ? 
      Well the Bible shows us it was for not serving God properly, and for killing God's son. 
      BUT when I suggest that the Governing Body should be removed or destroyed, oh dear, the JW's they get really upset ya know. 
      Governing Body = 8 men.   Jerusalem = how many, men, women and children, thousands of them. 
      But oh dear, now it would be murder. So what was it back then ?  Your see JW's live in a dream world, wrapped up in cotton wool, they just cannot face the real world.
      The Governing Body do not serve God properly. That is clearly visible to anyone that honestly wants to see it. 
      The Governing Body are destroying JW Org, and if JW Org is God's true Organisation then the GB are deliberately working against God and against God's intentions. 
      Humans that deliberately work against God and cause problems for God do not last long on this Earth. 
      The Bible shows much proof of this, such as those that opposed Moses. 
      I am expecting the GB to be removed, one way or another. But only if God really wants to use the JW Org / Watchtower soc for His own purposes. 
      If God does not want to use those Orgs then it would seem sensible for God to set up a new Org for His purposes. 
      The only problem with the GB being 'removed' is that JW's will call it a 'sign of the times' and 'persecution', but if God causes the removal then I'm sure He will put them straight. 
      Those people that say that the GB cannot be removed / destroyed, are those people that worship the GB. And those people that worship the GB may probably need removing too. 
      The world is wicked, it belongs to Satan. The Earth is wonderful and it belongs to Almighty God.
      For God to save this Earth and for Him to save a few humans too, drastic things have to take place. Drastic things have to take place.
       
    • By Albert Michelson
      What is the good news?
       
      The Bible is clear that even if someone had been clearly selected by god if they deviate from the truth they are to be rejected. 
       
      Galatians 1:8-9 However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to YOU as good news something beyond what we declared to YOU as good news, let him be accursed.  9 As we have said above, I also now say again, Whoever it is that is declaring to YOU as good news something beyond what YOU accepted, let him be accursed.
       
      This holds even more weight for ones like the GB who are not clearly selected and who's claim to authority rests solely on a demonstrably false interpretation of scripture.
      The organization claims that the 1914 teaching is necessary for salvation and even goes as far as to claim that the 1914 teaching is the good news spoken of in the Bible.
      *** w67 12/15 pp. 753-754 pars. 3-4 What Now Distinguishes the Good News to Be Preached ***
      "What a joy-inspiring addition or enlargement to the good news now to be preached! Now has come the victorious kingdom of our God together with the authority of his Christ, his Messiah! As for Satan the Devil and his demons, they have only a short period of time until they are bound and imprisoned in the abyss after the “war of the great day of God the Almighty” at Armageddon. All this additional wonderful information has been true since the end of the “appointed times of the nations” in 1914, and particularly since World War I closed in the year 1918. Not before the “appointed times of the nations” ended in the fall of 1914 could the good news be preached of the newborn, established heavenly kingdom of God and of his Messiah. This, then, must be the good news that Jesus Christ in his prophecy said had to be preached first in all the nations. (Mark 13:10) This generation of human society that has seen and experienced the world events since the Gentile Times closed in 1914—this is the “generation” that will not pass away until all the things foretold have happened, including the preaching of the good news first in all nations.
      4 Jesus’ prophecy in Mark 13:10, “Also, in all the nations the good news has to be preached first,” has not been undergoing fulfillment during the past nineteen centuries. It is only since the second decade of our twentieth century that this prophecy has been undergoing fulfillment. This began to be realized by the International Bible Students Association and the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society since the end of the second decade of our century. In the magazine issue of July 1, 1920, of The Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence the article was published entitled “Gospel of the Kingdom” and based on the theme text, “‘And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.’—Matthew 24:14.”
       It is for this reason that the organization is chained to the 1914 teaching. As the scripture I quoted above demonstrates the Bible says that one who teaches a good news that is false is cursed. If the organization admits that the 1914 and 1919 teachings are false they will have to admit that not only were they not selected as gods channel but that they have been teaching a false good news for the majority of their existence. It is for that reason that they disfellowship and shun people who cannot conscientiously remain in the faith. It's easier to just eliminate the opposition then to actually address the real issues with your theology. 
      *** w86 4/1 pp. 30-31 Questions From Readers ***
      Why have Jehovah’s Witnesses disfellowshipped (excommunicated) for apostasy some who still profess belief in God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ?
       
      "Approved association with Jehovah’s Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses. What do such beliefs include?
       
      That the great issue before humankind is the rightfulness of Jehovah’s sovereignty, which is why he has allowed wickedness so long. (Ezekiel 25:17) That Jesus Christ had a prehuman existence and is subordinate to his heavenly Father. (John 14:28) That there is a “faithful and discreet slave” upon earth today ‘entrusted with all of Jesus’ earthly interests,’ which slave is associated with the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses. (Matthew 24:45-47) That 1914 marked the end of the Gentile Times and the establishment of the Kingdom of God in the heavens, as well as the time for Christ’s foretold presence. (Luke 21:7-24; Revelation 11:15–12:10) That only 144,000 Christians will receive the heavenly reward. (Revelation 14:1, 3) That Armageddon, referring to the battle of the great day of God the Almighty, is near. (Revelation 16:14, 16; 19:11-21) That it will be followed by Christ’s Millennial Reign, which will restore an earth-wide paradise. That the first to enjoy it will be the present “great crowd” of Jesus’ “other sheep.”—John 10:16; Revelation 7:9-17; 21:3, 4."
       
      This is supposedly a list of the fundamental doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses that all are required to believe. You will in most cases be disfellowshiped for not believing in one or more of them. Unfortunately the truth is most of them are false.
    • By Jack Ryan
      If the love you have for your children is predicated on their beliefs, you don't love your children you love YOUR beliefs
    • By Jack Ryan
      In previous decades, when someone was disfellowshipped, they were told their time would be 6 months. Now it’s a full year?
      Why did that change from 6 mo to a year? and are they getting more ppl to come back with the increased time? With the less members staying in the org, you would think they want to lower the “jail time “
      Also are there any other religions that gives you months or years of time out, if you commit a sin, even if you actually want to come back?
      Also any former elders here? Why is there a standard set time for everyone? And why can they reject someone’s letter who wants to come back? Don’t they need more members ?
    • By Jack Ryan
      Jehovah's Witness Organization Redefines Shunning to Falsely.mp4
      Every JW visiting this page should MORALLY comment below and publicly state that this JW Lawyer is LYING through his teeth to the Canadian Supreme Court.
      If you don't, YOU participate in this gross sin. Because you ALL KNOW this is a false statement.
      Remember as well that this JW Lawyer is also an Officer of the Court.
      What the courts do not know is that JW's consider outright lying in court a part of "theocratic warfare" just like Muslims do. So it is a virtue to them.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. SMH.
      Can you spell P-E-R-J-U-R-Y?
    • By Jack Ryan
      "Sunday, December 30
      Asa’s heart was complete with Jehovah all his life.—1 Ki. 15:14.
      Each of us can examine his heart to see if it is fully devoted to God. Ask yourself, ‘Am I determined to please Jehovah, to defend true worship, and to protect his people from any corrupting influence?’ For example, what if someone close to you has to be disfellowshipped? Would you take decisive action by ceasing to associate with that person? What would your heart move you to do? Like Asa, you can show that you have a complete heart by fully relying on God when you are faced with opposition, even some that may seem insurmountable. You may be teased or ridiculed at school for taking a stand as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Or colleagues at work may taunt you for taking days off for spiritual activities or for not often working overtime. In such situations, pray to God, just as Asa did. (2 Chron. 14:11) Remain firm for what you know is right and wise. Remember that God strengthened and helped Asa, and He will strengthen you.
      w17.03 3:6-8 "

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
    • By Jack Ryan
      This was a case where 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.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. Has there been any cases after this, where DF cases went to court? Have there been cases in other countries were DF decisions were challenged and reversed?
    • By James Thomas Rook Jr.
      Here in the United States we have Cable TV with such things as "History Channel", "Discovery Channel", "Scifi Channel", and "A&E" the "Arts and Entertainment Channel".  Apparently around November 13 of this year they had a famous (?) TV star, Leah Remini,  who had been a Scientologist since she was eight years old turn Apostate, and she has done at least two TV seasons exposing the ills of the Church of Scientology", do an Expose' of Jehovah's Witnesses.
      I do not watch TV as a rule, and missed it, and I spent a few days looking for it and trying to download a copy.  It was not on YouTube, but I did find it under "Aftermath Jehovah's Witnesses" on the Russian equivalent of YouTube, "Rutube.ru". It would not download with my usual download software, so I had to find a free screen capture software, which took about four hours to get the settings just right, and I was able to download the two hour program from my monitor, as it was playing.
      Therefore, I watched the TV program three times, as I experimented with the settings to get a good screen copy to my hard drive..
      I could see both sides of the program viewpoints presented, and did not find us to be misrepresented in any way whatsoever ... but if there was EVER a clear example of the Law of Unintended Consequences, the horror the Governing Body has caused in disfellowshipping the way that it is currently done ... by ripping families apart, and creating  irreparable damage that can never be corrected with reinstatement, was chilling, and puts us in the same class as Scientologists ... which completely disregarding the horror and hardsip, and cruelty without any mercy whatsoever it creates locally, shames Jehovah's Name and Reputation over the whole planet.
      I don't believe there is anything a local Jehovah's Witness could do ... rob a bank ... have a harem ... have sex with horses ... etc., ad nauseum ... that would besmirch Jehovah's name and reputation globally as much as our current blatantly cruel public policies of destroying whole families for the sins of one person.
      I am very glad to have the education I have to know that the TRUTH is still the truth .... even though the 85% drivel has rotted and fermented into rotten sewage.
      Most JWs do NOT have this educational advantage ... so their lives are permanently destroyed.
      I don't expect much from people, and almost NOTHING from groups of people .... so for me, like getting one of those great salads at the Olive Garden Restaurant, and finding a big chunk of solid sewage in it ... I hold my nose, and eat around it.
      This TV Special is global news .... what could I possibly say to the average person that would clear the Name of God, that the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, NOT THE TELEVISION PROGRAM, has corrupted by its Pharisaic policies that have real world consequences?
      The exact same thing happened in ancient Israel, and a system that God blessed and supported for a thousand years and more was abandoned by God.
      The exact same thing.
       
       
       
       
    • By James Thomas Rook Jr.
      CAN A PERSON ... OR SHOULD A PERSON . BE DISFELLOWSHIPPED IN ABSTENSIA?
      Here is the situation .....  a person REPORTED to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses is accused, and NOT convicted ( ... because he is a fugitive from Justice ...) .....

      Apparently he was at one time in a "Position Of Authority", which possibly alludes to his being an  "Elder", and he may have relocated to another State or even another Country. Possibly using an alias.
      The  various Congregation Elders cannot find him, the Society cannot find him, and the U.S. Marshal's Service cannot find him.
      Not having any indication to the contrary ... at least from the information given in the pseudo-Wanted Poster shown above, he is possibly still officially one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
      Whether he is or not, his bad example raises an interesting  aspect of trying to figure out how the disfellowshipping "system" protocol actually works.
      Can any of the Congregations  he went to disfellowship him without his being present  to answer charges ?
      ... and SHOULD he be?
       
    • By James Thomas Rook Jr.
      DO  WE STILL  DISFELLOWSHIP  THE  MENTALLY  ILL ?
      I was a teenager in the 60's,  and I had a good friend that on Scout camping trips I introduced to the Truth, and I was there in NYC at Yankee Stadium when he was baptized as one of Jehovah's Witness. He was a true "straight arrow", and pioneered, always dressed immaculately, and eventually over the years became an Elder.
      One night, at an Elder's Meeting, he announced to the other Elders that he was Jesus Christ, and that his mother was the virgin Mary, and of course he was disfellowshipped.
      He spent several years in private mental institutions until his insurance money ran out, then in a State institution for several years.
      He called me up, and told me the story, and I told him I was the Great Turtleman, and every November, before I hibernated, I rose from the swamp and gave toys to all the good little boys and girls.  I was just pulling his leg, but he was dead serious.
      Later, he was in England, while his wife was trying without success to get him to take his medications, and fell over a balcony at Heathrow Airport and got killed.
      DO  WE STILL  DISFELLOWSHIP  THE  MENTALLY  ILL ?
       
    • By Jack Ryan
      from 2016 the year that they started the return to Jehovah brochure.
    • By Jack Ryan
      a heartbreaking video has emerged online showing how far reaching and deeply ingrained this shunning policy is; a video showing JehovahÂ’s Witnesses clapping in applause as a little girl announces she is shunning her own sister.
      Little Melody, and the sister she doesnÂ’t have.
      The incident appears to take place at one of this years Watchtower conventions. The video was posted on youtube by the girls parents, apprently eager to share with the world how they had trained one of their children to pretend her sister didnÂ’t exist purely on the basis of religious dogma.
      The video was comment-protected once viewers began expressing concern and displeasure at what they saw, but at the time of writing the video itself is still live and can be viewed below on the family’s youtube page. (EDIT 11/09/2017 – The video has been removed, but we have linked to an alternate site which has a copy)

      t shows a little girl called Melody. She is ten years old, and was apparently baptised when she was 9. This means that Melody is now committed to the religion for life, and will be shunned if she ever leaves, or “unrepentantly” breaks any of its vast array of detailed rules.
      During the interview, Melody explains that she has a sister who was “disfellowshipped,” which is the Witness term for one who is excommunicated; someone who was thrown out of the faith rather than leaving of their own accord. We are not told the reason for the disfellowshipping, but one can be subjected to it for a wide range of reasons such as pre-marital sex, celebrating Christmas or birthdays, voting, taking a blood transfusion, joining the military, or simply questioning any of the doctrines of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
      Melody states that her sister was trying to contact her, and asking her to stay in contact despite Watchtower decreeing that she be shunned. Remember, MelodyÂ’s sister has probably lost all her family and friends at this point; everyone she ever knew and loved.
      Melody admits that she misses and loves her sister, but states that she was afraid that if she didnÂ’t cut her sister off completely, she might be tempted to keep some form of relationship going. Thus, she has decided to shun her completely, as Watchtower demands. She claims that this was to protect her relationship with Jehovah.
      The audience of JehovahÂ’s Witnesses watching this announcement applaud.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
  • Forum Statistics

    62,390
    Total Topics
    118,018
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,577
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    CALIF
    Newest Member
    CALIF
    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.