JW Lawyer on Disfellowshipping and Shunning

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

58 minutes ago, Anna said:

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

Normally this would be a soul destroying irrational statement, sucking every drop of happiness and common sense out of the life of gullible people, buuuuut it is inculcated into us that it doesn't.

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

3 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

*** w17 October p. 12 The Truth Brings, “Not Peace, But a Sword” ***

The Truth Brings, “Not Peace, But a Sword”

It is my considered opinion, BTK46, that the corruption of that scripture is YOURS.

The Truth is not a license to slice up your family members, fathers, daughter, sons, mothers, etc, and cut their tongues out with shunning ...  it is an advisory that those on the OUTSIDE of the Christian Congregation will wage war against you with both figurative and literal swords ( or bayonets and rifles, etc....) .... much as is the case in how we are being currently treated by the Russian Federation, with their police power to enforce their edicts.

That scriptural advisory is a warning to us about what to expect, and why.  It is not a license for disrespecting your Mother and Father, and abandoning your Family for their  reasons of conscience, for in doing so you show that Love Always Fails, when confronted with the option of revenge and vindictiveness, and cruelty for the sake of consolidating assumed authority in order to suppress rebellion.

It does NOT suppress rebellion ... it just creates bitter enemies where before there was none before, and fills them with a terrible resolve for being cast off and treated unfairly, and with contempt.

Disfellowshipping is necessary ... but HOW it is currently done is like being hit hard with a felt lined silk glove, with a steel fist inside.

Remember ... it's the ENEMIES swords we need to be aware of ... not our own.

We today do not have the right to stone someone to death ...or maim and cripple them the way we do it now.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

If you cannot forgive your enemies, the most you should do is forget them.

Torturing them is cruel, unfair, and barbaric for enemies ... and MORE so for your own family!

I should know ... I am a self proclaimed Barbarian, and I know about such things.

[JW Insider]

8 hours ago, Anna said:

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.

If we believe that Christianity fully calls for what appears to be a loveless stance, then we should be proud of it, and express it clearly to the highest courts in every land. Yes, we think we are being cautious as serpents, but to ALSO be innocent as doves we can have no dishonesty and no guile. If we think this is part of Christianity in the method we practice then we are denying Christ if we hold back from telling out all that is profitable.

I'm using "shame" in the sense of having something to hide. When I pass up a gas station that doesn't have its prices on display, I also assume that they are "ashamed" of them.

8 hours ago, Anna said:

Again, I am not sure shame should be credited for this. With regard to CSA

Yes. I don't expect that shame was the only factor. There are and were definitely other factors, too. I don't think these other factors discount what I meant by the part that shame has played. And I think it is much stronger than you think, especially in the way all of us wish we didn't have deal with such a topic. The best and most critical point in the recent articles on the topic correctly move the shame to its proper targets, but there are still several potential pitfalls related to shame. A full warning to elders about the importance of the updated processes should include the ARC hearings, for example. The elders will understand the importance of such shame as a motivation to do the right thing. Some of those elders should have been "shamed" at the time when they thought more about reputation than protection of children.

8 hours ago, Anna said:

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?

Yes. A provocative stretch. I'm using the term disfellowship with the sometimes ambiguous idea that comes from Leviticus in the expression "he should be cut off from the congregation." Sometimes you can't help but see this as a euphemism for the death penalty, especially when the full punishment is stoning.

I think you are already aware of older Watchtower articles that also say, effectively, that it is a good thing we don't live in the time of the Israelite law, when one would be stoned to death. And of course the more infamous one about disfellowshipping children in a household that says, effectively, that it is too bad that we don't live under the Israelite law when we would have been able to stone our disfellowshipped children.

*** w52 11/15 p. 703 Questions From Readers ***
In the case of where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship? . . . Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship.

On the issue of the range of acceptable and unacceptable medical therapies involving blood, this is probably too touchy a subject to get into right now. I'll make it a bit easier by going back to our position with respect to pets:

*** w64 2/15 pp. 127-128 Questions From Readers ***
Would it be a violation of the Scriptures for a Christian to permit a veterinarian to give blood transfusions to a pet? And what of animal food? May it be used if there is reason to believe there is blood in it? Also, is it permissible to use fertilizer that has blood in it?
 . . .
How, then, must we answer the question, Would it be a violation of the Scriptures for a Christian to permit a veterinarian to give blood transfusions to a pet? By all means, to do so would be a violation of the Scriptures. . . .
In harmony with this, surely a Christian parent could not rationalize to the effect that a pet belongs to a minor child and thus this unbaptized child might, on its own, authorize a veterinarian to administer the blood. No. The baptized parent bears the responsibility, for that parent has authority over the child and over the pet and should control the entire matter. That is the parent’s obligation before God. . . .
What, then, of animal food? May it be used if there is reason to believe there is blood in it? As far as a Christian is concerned, the answer is No, on the basis of principles already mentioned. Therefore, if a Christian discovers that blood components are listed on the label of a container of dog food or some other animal food, he could not conscientiously feed that product to any animal over which he has jurisdiction. . . .
But now, what about fertilizer that has blood in it? . . .  Hence, no Christian farmer today could properly spread blood on his fields to fertilize the soil, nor would he use commercial fertilizer containing blood. . . . It would be a violation of God’s Word.

If I buy butcher's bones for a large dog that still have bloody bits of meat on them, and of course, the marrow filled with whole blood cells, I can't feed them to my dog. I'm told that my conscience won't allow it. And if my cat or pet snake loves live mice, can I buy them and feed them to the cat or snake, without first draining the blood from them? Can I use live minnows on a hook while fishing without first draining the blood from those minnows? Do we keep a country dog from picking at roadkill, or snapping at mosquitoes or ticks?

And since the blood (and fat, and even remaining portions of a carcass) of an animal had to be poured out upon the ground during the time of the Mosaic Law, then what if an olive tree grew over that spot some day? Was that spot fertilized by blood, and becomes forbidden?

Should we be told what our conscience can and can't allow in all these cases? Should we impose our conscience on children, or on their pets? And if a circumstance comes up where a one-year-old child will most likely die without an available white cell, plasma or red cell hemoglobin treatment, and will most likely live if she receives one, then must our "conscience" be imposed on that child?

[TrueTomHarley]

8 hours ago, Anna said:

I am not quite sure I understand your reasoning

I may have weighed in too quickly on this one, without having read the whole context, just like the ol pork chop says I do. 

Like Herod, I was in “a fighting mood” at the time. Unlike Herod, I have the worldnewsmediaforum as an outlet whenever I am punchy like that. That way I don’t have to go shooting up any public place, which is all the rage in these insane days.

Since the JWI comment immediately follows mine, and then your remark,  I am not sure if I have made a faux pas or hit a home run, but I will cover myself in any event.

[JW Insider]

8 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Since the JWI comment immediately follows mine, and then your remark,  I am not sure if I have made a faux pas or hit a home run, but I will cover myself in any event.

I expect that we are just on two different wavelengths here. I'm also guessing that I see more that's right in your answer than you will see in mine. These are just opinions for consideration, even if they seem to get a bit too serious.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

...

Oh, I dunno, Billy.

Sometimes when my mind wanders to evil things, I think about Adolph Hitler, sometimes to Donald Trump, sometimes even to how you are doing ... and sometimes even to that spawn of Earthly Evil, Watchtower Lawyers, who pervert Justice in order to win their cases, as documented in many court transcripts.

Think of those court transcripts as scripts for the diabolically challenged.

Of course, with the  posting of your devil emoticon, and how you process logic and reasoning skills, it's clear you don't need them.

However, you could probably use a self-help book for the satirically challenged.

You might enjoy this video of a Watchtower Lawyer explaining how we DO NOT SHUN disfellowshipped members, which ( and this is a VERY important point ...) because he truly believes this HE IS NOT A LIAR, but what he is saying itself ... is a bald faced lie, distorted by WDS.

1161273524_JehovahsWitnessOrganizationRedefinesShunningtoFalsely.mp4.85f4c020c9531a829adfda4cd5d6d92f.mp4

[Srecko Sostar]

9 hours ago, Anna said:

13 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.

Perhaps it can be said in this way.

When JW members defending "the truth", in such or similar issue, inside own private or congregational circle than they are proud on temporary doctrines.

But when JW member have to defend some sorts of practice before "worldly people" (for example, not pick up the  phone to dfd daughter or let baby to die because of blood and fraction policy)  caused by accepting official doctrines and interpretations of Bible verses, then i can be sure how some shadow of shame is possible to come on face of some (maybe not all) JW's. Perhaps some very good observer and reader of micro facial expressions, mimics and gestures, would be able to see that. And even that same JW member would feel some sort of short term discomfort.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

47 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

And even that same JW member would feel some sort of short term discomfort.

Like when you flush a dead goldfish?

[Srecko Sostar]

9 hours ago, Anna said:

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. 

Br. Herd's comments are something to do with his age

As GB member and in a special position as one who Take a Lead of God's People on Earth, Br. Herd obviously, in that particular moment when gave this speech, was not Led by Spirit or  Guide by Bible and Angels .... but he was Led by his Age. :))

Another thing. While reading comments, one think, one thing, came on my mind. About not going to army service and "learning to fight". I made parallels with another sort of "weapon, gun". That is words. It looks to me, because people can "learn" good and bad things, it is not always good to send people in school to learn how to read and write and giving talk. :))) Because sometimes, when some of such people wrote and/or said something from position of Teacher (spiritual in our example) then he can make more "killings"(spiritual stoning) than some soldier on battle field.   

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

The Bible clearly states that not everyone should be teachers ....

[TrueTomHarley]

7 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

As GB member and in a special position as one who Take a Lead of God's People on Earth, Br. Herd obviously, in that particular moment when gave this speech, was not Led by Spirit or  Guide by Bible and Angels .... but he was Led by his Age. :))

It is revealing to me that those who taunt us endlessly over just how “inspired” are the ones at the helm today seem to take for granted that there should be ones who are that way. It gets even more crazy when words such as “infallible” are thrown in. “Perfect” is even worse. 

“Look at what Brother Jackson said,” they gloat. “Guess he’s not so infallible after all, is he?” they say. They take for granted that for the Christian life to have validity in modern times, there should be ones who ARE infallible, who can and SHOULD spoon-feed members, so there is a lessened need for faith, and hopefully (from their point of view) none at all.

These ones wouldn’t have lasted two minutes in the first century, when the ones taking the lead were manifestly not that way. A local speaker with a dramatic flair enacted a fictional encounter from back then with an irate householder, a forerunner of today’s “apostates.” “What! You’re going to tell me about love?” he tells the visiting brother. “Look, I was there at that meeting of Paul and Barnabas after John took a leave of absence! You see those two kids there? [motioning to his young children playing on the floor] They do not fight as I saw those two grown men of yours fight! Why don’t you learn love yourself before you come here to lecture me about it!”

For that reason, I shy away from such loaded words as “infallible.” Maybe the insistence on infallibility is a holdover from the Catholic Church, which for centuries insisted that the Pope was that way. “Inspired” will also blow up in your face, because you end up doing backflips in translating just what the word should effectively mean now—or even then, when the “leading men” fought like kids. (I even put the word “apostates” in quotes, increasingly, because it comes in many varieties and it means different things to different people.)

It is enough to say that the written record, which includes the dealings and interactions of imperfect ones at the first-century helm, is deemed “inspired.” “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,  so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.” This is so even though it includes the account of Peter’s astounding cowardess (given his leadership role at the time) of changing his association once the Jewish-based brothers came on the scene—before they did, he mixed freely with the Gentile-based Christians; after they did, he “withdrew” from them.

It is still “inspired.” It is enough for us to go on. It is enough to make us “fully competent” and “completely equipped for every good work.” Even though it includes the blunderings of the “uneducated and ordinary” ones that were the leaders back then—and the leaders today hold to that pattern—that is still the case. It is not at all what Srecko or John thinks it should be—a true “anointed” to wipe away every tear and smooth the path, (sorry, Witness) removing all pebbles so that the people of God can sail along blithely without really having to develop faith.