JW Lawyer on Disfellowshipping and Shunning

[Anna]

The lawyer is not lying if he is referring to family members STILL living at home. The problem is, most people understand family members to mean anyone who was originally born into the family, but not necessarily still all living together.

The legal definition of family (even immediate family) is: 

• Father
• Mother
• Parent’s spouse, if a parent has remarried
• Child (by blood, adoption, or marriage)
• Brother
• Sister
• Spouse
• Grandparent
• Grandchild

Further, a person’s immediate family for legal purposes also includes the spouse of his child, brother, or sister, as well as the father, mother, brother, and sister of his spouse.

Obviously, rarely do all these members live together all of the time, with the exception of the spouse and underage children. 

I haven't seen the rest of the video, but had the Judge asked specifically if he is referring to family living outside of the home, then the lawyer would have had to clarify this. However, if there was no further clarification established, then technically and legally the JW lawyer did not lie, but allowed others to assume something else, therefor it could be said that he was misleading.

 

Someone's spouse, parents and grandparents, children and grand children, brothers and sisters, mother in law and father in law, brothers in law and sisters in law, daughters in law and sons in law. Adopted, half, and step members are also included in immediate family

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/immediate-family.html

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, Equivocation said:

I see my name lol, but confused on how and why I am mentioned jajaja.

Goes back half-a-year ago to an old conversation where you used the term "an Anti-Pauline" (which up until then had been a fairly rare term, used a few times by only one other person).   

On 1/24/2019 at 10:53 PM, Equivocation said:

So I guess that makes you an Anti-Pauline?

On 11/17/2018 at 3:08 PM, Space Merchant said:

Take it up with him and become an Anti-Pauline in the process.

tmbwipute

[Equivocation]

@JW Insider got it. Also realizing this was the thread lol.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

2 hours ago, Anna said:

I haven't seen the rest of the video, but had the Judge asked specifically if he is referring to family living outside of the home, then the lawyer would have had to clarify this. However, if there was no further clarification established, then technically and legally the JW lawyer did not lie, but allowed others to assume something else, therefor it could be said that he was misleading.

 

[TrueTomHarley]

8 hours ago, Equivocation said:

I see my name lol, but confused on how and why I am mentioned jajaja.

Doesn’t matter. Take it. Who doesn’t want to be thought well-read?

If I recall correctly, Auntie Pauline was one of @James Thomas Rook Jr.’s favorite aunts.

[Space Merchant]

@TrueTomHarley Or that. Pretty much anyone is does not like what Apostle Paul had to say. Believe it or not, those that do are often the ones to either ignore Paul's written, or tear it out from their Bible - ALL OF IT.

I remember one of my debates a group one, a long time ago, the other group had one of their speakers, a 19 year old year had the American Standard Bible, it was revealed that all that Paul had wrote, she had torn from her AS, it became evident because when the discussion revolved around The Promised Abrahamic Seed, she was not able to find anything in the New testament properly, until one of the onlookers check her Bible and had told each and everyone one of us what was discovered, and after being exposed, she left the debate with a bang by "bashing Paul" if you will. The judge of the time was clearly not as religious or an avid Bible reader, hence he said, I remember vividly, that Satan must've been eating the pages of the girl's Bible because I see little to nothing about what Paul wrote.

That being said, it was from there on out, well I would say days later, I wanted to know, even figure out if there was actually people out there who detests Paul, and I found out later on. It gets even worse when people tried to push the idea that Matthew, Jesus and others were somehow against Paul.

[Noble Berean]

19 hours ago, Anna said:

The lawyer is not lying if he is referring to family members STILL living at home. The problem is, most people understand family members to mean anyone who was originally born into the family, but not necessarily still all living together.

The legal definition of family (even immediate family) is: 

• Father
• Mother
• Parent’s spouse, if a parent has remarried
• Child (by blood, adoption, or marriage)
• Brother
• Sister
• Spouse
• Grandparent
• Grandchild

Further, a person’s immediate family for legal purposes also includes the spouse of his child, brother, or sister, as well as the father, mother, brother, and sister of his spouse.

Obviously, rarely do all these members live together all of the time, with the exception of the spouse and underage children. 

I haven't seen the rest of the video, but had the Judge asked specifically if he is referring to family living outside of the home, then the lawyer would have had to clarify this. However, if there was no further clarification established, then technically and legally the JW lawyer did not lie, but allowed others to assume something else, therefor it could be said that he was misleading.

 

Someone's spouse, parents and grandparents, children and grand children, brothers and sisters, mother in law and father in law, brothers in law and sisters in law, daughters in law and sons in law. Adopted, half, and step members are also included in immediate family

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/immediate-family.html

You’re being an apologist. It doesn’t matter if he didn’t technically lie (which I still believe he is doing). At best, it’s intentionally VERY misleading. Someone outside of the org will easily misunderstand this Bethelite lawyer’s  comments to believe the org is more tolerant than it actually Is.  It’s no different from the org saying similar things about disfellowshipped family in the JW.org FAQ section. They know what they’re doing. The org has a public and private voice and they’re very different. If the org has the truth, it should speak the truth instead of hiding behind legalese.

[Noble Berean]

On 1/28/2019 at 7:51 PM, Equivocation said:

Even outside of the faith this is the practice. Where do you think the practice originated from if you don't mind me asking and from whose congregation?

That’s a very extremist interpretation of Pauls message. The only Christian religions that practice shunning on former members are regarded by most as thought controlling cults.

[JW Insider]

48 minutes ago, Noble Berean said:

At best, it’s intentionally VERY misleading.

I agree completely. I gave Anna a big up-vote on her comments because she pointed this out when she said: "then technically and legally the JW lawyer did not lie, but allowed others to assume something else, therefor it could be said that he was misleading."

I understand that the entire point was to mislead, and I hope everyone will see that this simply means that the Society's representative here knows that we should not be proud of our current practice. Therefore we are ashamed.

I know these things always take too long, but we (mostly the WTS leaders) have been shown to be ashamed about our stance on things before, and it has resulted in changes. I think we can now be almost 100 percent in agreement with our current stated stance on CSA procedures, for example. We have been shamed into admitting that corporal punishment of a violent nature against children is wrong. I think we will soon stop saying, as Brother Herd has said, that shunning our disfellowshipped children is analagous to casting out demons.

Also, I know it's another controversial topic that many will strongly disagree with, but in the last few years I have also come to realize that we are wrong to have a policy of "disfellowshipping" children, by allowing them to die, when their temporary life on earth could very likely be lengthened through blood-related medical treatments. In one recent case I know about, it has been clear that if those medical treatments can lengthen a child's temporary physical life on earth, we are to tell the parent that no matter what their own conscience says, their conscience is not allowed to allow the child to receive the treatment. The Biblical principle of pulling a small lamb out of a pit even on the Sabbath is too strong for me to think we should impose the WTS's rule on our own conscience and then on a child's conscience so that they are disfellowshipped through death. It's a way in which we practice having no natural affection, and is related to our acceptance of Brother Herd's comments. 

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, Noble Berean said:

You’re being an apologist. 

That is a sin?

1 hour ago, Noble Berean said:

It doesn’t matter if he didn’t technically lie

Actually, it makes all the difference in the world

1 hour ago, Noble Berean said:

At best, it’s intentionally VERY misleading

To the extent that this is true, do you know people who lead off with their worst PR take instead of their best? Of course, it is proper to present it as the lawyer does. Parents re minor children is a proper subject for Court concern. Do you think the Court should weigh in on the various reasons that ADULT family members not see eye to eye?

1 hour ago, Noble Berean said:

Someone outside of the org will easily misunderstand this Bethelite lawyer’s  comments to believe the org is more tolerant than it actually Is.  

Anyone who knows anything about Witnesses knows that they practice disfellowshipping for those unrepently opposed in deed or word. Nobody has to explain to them that those subject to this ultimate discipline might not like it.

1 hour ago, Noble Berean said:

If the org has the truth, it should speak the truth instead of hiding behind legalese.

To the extent they “hide behind legalese, it is because their opponents make use of it over various issues, in this case, disfellowshipping.

 

1 hour ago, Noble Berean said:

They know what they’re doing.

Do you prefer it when people don’t?

I mean, really there is nothing here in this comment other than you grumbling that people exist who are different than you.

[Anna]

3 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

You’re being an apologist. 

I hope I was being a 'factualist'. JW Insider understood what I was saying.

[Anna]

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I understand that the entire point was to mislead, and I hope everyone will see that this simply means that the Society's representative here knows that we should not be proud of our current practice. Therefore we are ashamed.

Bold mine.

Not sure I quite agree with you there. In my opinion I do not think we are ashamed, but we think others will simply not understand our, what appears to be a loveless stance.

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I know these things always take too long, but we (mostly the WTS leaders) have been shown to be ashamed about our stance on things before, and it has resulted in changes. I think we can now be almost 100 percent in agreement with our current stated stance on CSA procedures, for example. We have been shamed into admitting that corporal punishment of a violent nature against children is wrong.

 Again, I am not sure shame should be credited for this. With regard to CSA I think it was recognized that certain procedures we had in place (eg. having to speak in front of the accused) were not only traumatizing for the victim but essentially unnecessary, and because there was no direct Biblical principle stating otherwise, we were able to 'bend' some of these procedures to be more in line with current more empathetic ways of doing things. As regards corporal punishment, that has always been dependent on the child. Some were thought to need it, others not. Unfortunately we both know that Br. Jackson denied that as an organization we ever practiced corporal punishment. So I will agree with you on this one, that perhaps his denial stemmed from shame, perhaps he never personally liked the idea of corporal punishment himself. But it could also stem from the fact that we do not want to be misunderstood and seen as an unloving organization in this uber sensitive society (especially western society). This might also apply to the shunning of relatives, especially close family members (not living at home). Although Tom has a point point when he says: (underscore mine)

7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Parents re minor children is a proper subject for Court concern. Do you think the Court should weigh in on the various reasons that ADULT family members not see eye to eye?

 

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Also, I know it's another controversial topic that many will strongly disagree with, but in the last few years I have also come to realize that we are wrong to have a policy of "disfellowshipping" children, by allowing them to die, when their temporary life on earth could very likely be lengthened through blood-related medical treatments. In one recent case I know about, it has been clear that if those medical treatments can lengthen a child's temporary physical life on earth, we are to tell the parent that no matter what their own conscience says, their conscience is not allowed to allow the child to receive the treatment. The Biblical principle of pulling a small lamb out of a pit even on the Sabbath is too strong for me to think we should impose the WTS's rule on our own conscience and then on a child's conscience so that they are disfellowshipped through death. It's a way in which we practice having no natural affection, and is related to our acceptance of Brother Herd's comments. 

I am not quite sure I understand your reasoning about "disfellowshipping" children by allowing them to die. Disfellowshipping is always a disciplinary action, how does that relate to this situation?

I agree it is a very difficult situation when we are told what our conscience should be in the case of a minor child receiving blood treatment. And then impose that imposed conscience on the child. Emotions aside, it gets increasingly difficult when as guardians we are responsible for the child before Jehovah (and before the law), and the child is too young to make decisions of it's own. This is why courts will overrule the rights of the parents to make decisions in this case. Have you seen the movie with Emma Thompson 'The Children's Act'? In this movie she played the judge that overruled the parents wishes, AND the child's wishes although he was just months away from being an adult. (Although this movie sounds like it revolved around this issue, it wasn't really about that, but rather about a young man's obsession with an older woman. But it did highlight the fact that this young man's stance may have been because of the influence of his parents, rather than his own conviction). 

Unfortunately, (or should I say fortunately?) Br. Herd's comments are something to do with his age. That's not to say much younger persons cannot adopt the same stance. I have known elders tell a young woman she should be happy she is not living in Israelite times as she would have been stoned.