Jump to content
The World News Media

JW Lawyer on Disfellowshipping and Shunning


Jack Ryan

Recommended Posts


  • Views 7.6k
  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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 C

Well, there were 2 inaccurate points that lawyer made, they have to seat in the second room or at the back of the hall and not allow to enter the hall before prayer and they have to leave the hall bef

Posted Images

  • Member
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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
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.

 

2019-08-03_020942.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Definitely should try the Bond roll here when you get a chance: this is a mom and pop place that does a great job  
    • An interesting concept, bible discipline. I am struck by the prevalence of ignorance about spiritual discipline on "Reddit." While physical and mental disciplines receive attention, the profound impact of spiritual discipline on a person's physical and mental well-being is often overlooked. Is it possible to argue against the words of the Apostle Paul? When he penned those words in Hebrews 12, he was recognizing that there are moments when an individual must be "rebuked" in order to be corrected. Even Jesus himself established a precedent when he rebuked Peter and referred to him as Satan for failing to comprehend what Jesus had already revealed to the apostles. Did that imply that Jesus had an evil heart? Not at all, it was quite the opposite; Jesus had a loving heart. His need to correct Peter actually showcased his genuine love for him. If he hadn't cared, he would have let Peter persist in his mistaken ways, leading to a fate similar to Judas'. There is a clear emphasis on avoiding the apostate translation and its meaning, yet many seem to overlook the biblical foundation for the reasons NOT to follow the path of the fallen brethren or those with an apostate mentality. Those individuals have embraced the path of darkness, where the illuminating power of light cannot penetrate, to avoid receiving the righteous discipline based on God's Bible teachings. They are undoubtedly aware that this undeniable truth of life must be disregarded in order to uphold their baseless justifications for the unjust act of shunning. Can anyone truly "force" someone or stop them from rejecting a friend or family member? Such a notion would be absurd, considering the fact that we all have the power of free will. If a Witness decides to distance themselves from a family member or friend simply because they have come out as gay, who is anyone within the organization to question or challenge that personal sentiment? It is unfortunate that there are individuals, both within and outside the organization, who not only lack a proper understanding of the Bible but also dare to suggest that God's discipline is barbaric. We must remember that personal choices should be respected, and it is not for others to judge or condemn someone based on their sexual orientation but should be avoided under biblical grounds. No one should have the power to compel an individual to change their sexual orientation, nor should anyone be forced to accept someone for who they are. When it comes to a family's desire to shield their children from external influences, who has the right to challenge the parents' decision? And if a family's rejection of others is based on cultural factors rather than religious beliefs, who can impose religious judgment on them? Who should true followers of Christ follow? The words of God or those who believe they can change God's laws to fit their lives? How can we apply the inspired words of Paul from God to embrace the reality of God's discipline? On the contrary, how can nonconformists expect to persuade those with a "worldview" that their religious beliefs are unacceptable by ostracizing individuals, when God condemns homosexuality? This is precisely why the arguments put forth by ex-witnesses are lacking in their pursuit of justice. When they employ misguided tactics, justice remains elusive as their arguments are either weak or inconsistent with biblical standards. Therefore, it is crucial to also comprehend Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 9:27. The use of the word "shun" is being exaggerated and excessively condemned by those who reject biblical shunning as a form of punishment. Eph 5:3-14 NIV 3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. 4 Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. 5 For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person — such a man is an idolater — has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.  6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7 Therefore do not be partners with them.  8 For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light 9 (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) 10 and find out what pleases the Lord. 11 Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. 13 But everything exposed by the light becomes visible. The impact of the message becomes significantly stronger when we emphasize the importance of avoiding any association with unrighteousness and those who remain unrepentant. In fact, it becomes even more compelling when we witness how some individuals, who dismiss biblical shunning as a method of discipline, excessively criticize and condemn the use of the word "shun". Therefore, Jehovah's Witnesses do not shun people; instead, they choose to focus on the negative actions being committed, which is in accordance with biblical teachings. This should be construed as ex-Witness rhetoric. Now, let's consider why ex-Witnesses specifically target one particular religion. What justifications do they provide when other Christian denominations also adhere to the same principle grounded in the Bible? Chapter 1 - Preface Both must therefore test themselves: the one, if he is qualified to speak and leave behind him written records; the other, if he is in a right state to hear and read: as also some in the dispensation of the Eucharist, according to  custom enjoin that each one of the people individually should take his part. One's own conscience is best for choosing accurately or shunning. And its firm foundation is a right life, with suitable instruction. But the imitation of those who have already been proved, and who have led correct lives, is most excellent for the understanding and practice of the commandments. "So that whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  It therefore follows, that every one of those who undertake to promote the good of their neighbours, ought to consider whether he has betaken himself to teaching rashly and out of rivalry to any; if his communication of the word is out of vainglory; if the the only reward he reaps is the salvation of those who hear, and if he speaks not in order to win favour: if so, he who speaks by writings escapes the reproach of mercenary motives. "For neither at any time used we flattering words, as ye know," says the apostle, "nor a cloak of covetousness. God is witness. Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, when we might have been burdensome as the apostles of Christ. But we were gentle among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children."   (from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2) Divine promises 2. The manner of shunning, in the word escaping. There is a flying away required, and that quickly, as in the plague, or from a fire which hath almost burned us, or a flood that breaketh in upon us. We cannot soon enough escape from sin (Matt 3:7; Heb 6:18). No motion but flight becomes us in this case. Doctrine: That the great end and effect of the promises of the gospel is to make us partakers of the Divine nature. (from The Biblical Illustrator)  
    • Clearly, they are already demanding your exile. Yes! It's unfortunate that Pudgy spoiled a great discussion about science. I hope the discussion can continue without any more nonsensical interruptions. Just a suggestion since they are on your heels. Wow! You speak! It seems you have a lot to say! Now they are going to treat like, who do you think you are, mister big stuff! Are those aliens now going to imply that anyone who speaks out against the five or six key contributors to this site will be treated as though it is George just because those in opposition speak the language they hate to hear, the TRUTH? They are seeking individuals who will embrace their nonconformist values and appreciate what they can offer in shaping public opinion contrary to the established agenda of God and Christ. Their goal is to enhance their writing abilities and avoid squandering time on frivolous pursuits, mainly arguing about the truth they don't care for. They see it all as a mere game, even when leading people astray. They believe they have every right to and will face no biblical repercussions, or so they believe. They just want to have fun just like that Cyndi Lauper song. Be prepared to be belittled and ridiculed, all the while they claim to be angels. Haha! By the way, please refrain from using the same language as George. They appear to believe that when others use the same words, it means they are the same person, and they emphasize this as if no one else is allowed to use similar grammar. It seems they think only they have the right to use the same or similar writing styles. Quite amusing, isn't it? See, what I just placed in bold, now I'm George, lol! Now, let's leave this nice science thread for people that want to know more about science. I believe George left it at "Zero Distance."  
    • Nice little thread you’ve got going here, SciTech. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it.
    • It's truly disheartening when someone who is supposed to be a friend of the exclusive group resorts to using profanity in their comments, just like other members claiming to be witnesses. It's quite a ludicrous situation for the public to witness.  Yet, the "defense" of such a person, continues. 
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

    • lauleb  »  misette

      merci pour ton travail très utile. tu es une aide qui fortifie
      · 0 replies
    • Pamela Dunston  »  T.B. (Twyla)

      Hi, TB
      I would like to get the weekly meeting and watchtower materials  and the 2024 convention 
      Attend the 2024 Convention—“Declare the Good News!”
      notebook, I just recently got a new computer, If don't mind my brother to add me on and allow me access to our study again.
       
      Thank you, so much
      Sister Dunston
      · 1 reply
    • SpiritualSister 24  »  DARLENE2022

      Hello, Darlene, I just love your name, I had a cousin named Darline, and had a classmate also named Darlene! It's a pleasure to know another Darlene! Especially a Spiritual Sister! There's some websites, Ministry Ideaz , JW Stuff.com, and Etsy that I use to order my yearly buttons for the Conventions! They always send me what I order, and their also Jehovah's Witnesses, that send us the merchandise we order!  You can check out these websites, and they might have what your looking for! I hope I have been helpful in assisting you, Darlene! Agape love, Shirley!😀
      · 1 reply
    • SpiritualSister 24

      2024"Enter Into God's Rest" Circuit Assembly! 
      · 0 replies
    • Janice Lewis  »  T.B. (Twyla)

      Hello Twyla, when will the weekly study material be available. I am a member.
      Janice Lewis     lewisjanice84@gmail.com
      Thank you
      · 1 reply
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      159.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,690
    • Most Online
      1,773

    Newest Member
    BABA
    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.