Jump to content
The World News Media

JW Lawyer on Disfellowshipping and Shunning


Jack Ryan

Recommended Posts


  • Views 7.3k
  • 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
8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

By the way, your wording here is almost the precise wording that Allen Smith had used when I pointed this out, right down to the misspelling of "by product" followed by the word "Fraction."

You know, if it wasn’t so cumbersome a process requiring yet another email address, I think I would introduce a character AllenSmith2000, or maybe even (taking inspiration from the postal service) AllenSmithForever

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
6 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

When, Meat is processed as kosher, then you have to understand the term fraction.

When meat is processed as kosher, then you do NOT have to understand the term fraction. There are no blood fractions in kosher processed meat, only very small quantities of WHOLE blood.

6 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

The point being missed is, while whole blood had many complications and was misunderstood by the science community, fraction blood byproducts have been studied.

The point might have been missed because it's not part of the Watchtower's doctrine. The publications have put a lot of emphasis on potential health risks of accepting and health advantages of abstaining. We shouldn't care so much that whole blood has been studied and has had a history of many complications, nor the fact that fractions, too, have been studied and has had a history of many complications. We don't abstain from blood for health reasons, that's just a potential advantage of abstaining from blood. It's also a potential advantage of abstaining from blood fractions.

*** w91 6/15 p. 9 par. 5 Saving Life With Blood—How? ***
Yes, the central reason why they were to avoid taking in blood was, not that it could be unhealthy, but that blood had special meaning to God.

*** w04 6/15 p. 29 Questions From Readers ***
Do Jehovah’s Witnesses accept any minor fractions of blood?
. . .
Those practices (even if some Romans did them for health reasons) were wrong for Christians

6 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I would say a byproduct, by comparison would be safer than a regular whole blood transfusion.

I'd say so too, but your idea looks like a tacit admission that the WTS changed its doctrine to allow fractions for the wrong reasons. Making temporary health benefits more important than God's law. 

6 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Therefore, it was beneficial to voice the dangers of whole blood as the early Watchtower did, due to health complications rather than how it is now, leaving “fraction blood” to the individual’s conscience.

And here you state it more explicitly, that this was the reason: "Therefore, . . . due to health." And, in fact, your entire post is about health and cost considerations, among the various therapies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

To bring this blood discussion more directly in line with the topic, one should consider that almost the exact same thing was done by WT lawyers in the Bulgaria case, where the WTS legal team came up with a way to appease the officials who were determining the status of our work in Bulgaria (by publicly denying that there would be religious repercussions for accepting a blood transfusion). Then, to clarify, internal communications from the WTS to the congregations stated that nothing had changed, and that there would definitely continue to be religious repercussions for accepting a blood transfusion.

https://www.watchman.org/articles/jehovahs-witnesses/new-watchtower-blood-transfusion-policy/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

If he “technically” told the truth, as NB put it, that means that he “actually” did. That may be good enough when dealing with someone who is going after your jugular. Jesus, when dealing with someone who was going after his jugular, gave such a “complete” witness that Pilate said: “What! Are you not speaking to me?!”

Nonetheless, it is not a bad question from Srecko:

On 8/5/2019 at 1:35 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

Why not to explain all about JW way of living and how they practice Bible principles, to all this people involved in case? It would be Great Witnessing ... and he will make JHVH to be very proud.

I can think of two reasons (besides what is in the first paragraph about Jesus) why they might show restraint, assuming they did.

First, the complexion of courts have greatly changed since the days of Hayden Covington, when you could read a scripture that would be considered an answer putting the matter to rest. These days, where atheism is all the rage, a scripture might be seen as intensifying the problem. Some portions of Scripture are widely considered “hate speech.” That wasn’t so back in the day. In this case, we find ourselves defending a type of discipline to a system-of-things that has largely cast off discipline as outmoded, and deservedly so, as it can stifle “self-esteem.”

A second reason is that the Christian could once caution about the “low sink of debauchery” (1 Peter 4:4) and the judges would say: “Yeah, we don’t want to go there.” Today they are as likely to say: “Water’s fine in the low sink—who are you to judge?” Moral standards have changed, and even the things that are still frowned upon are frowned upon to a much lesser degree.

So it is a judgment call, and I don’t go there, having no qualifications as a lawyer. I learned long ago in my twenties, when someone ran head-on into my Dodge Dart that I had spent much time “restoring,” finding a rare unrusted body, towing it 70 miles, and dropping a working engine in it, that even in small claims court, a lawyer is an asset. The other side represented himself with one, and my argument that my car was a “classic” that merited more than the usual remuneration, since I had worked so hard on it, went nowhere. He knew all the catch phrases and secret lawyer hand signals, and when I reached to hand a document to the judge without first “asking to approach the bench” it was the beginning of the end for me. These days, when I have any legal matter to attend to, I hire a lawyer, cross my fingers that he is smarter than the villain’s lawyer, and hope for the best. In a dispute with the city, my lawyer said that, in his opinion, submitted documents only had to “weigh enough” to carry the day.

Should the Watchtower lawyer defend disfellowshipping by quoting 2 Timothy 2:17 about how unsavory speech will “spread like gangrene” and how on that account, certain ones in the first century were “handed over to Satan” with the possible outcome that they would be taught “not to blaspheme?”

There is a part of me that says ‘yes’ to this, but it is their call, not mine, and they are the ones in the trenches, not me. I do try to be “complete” in my own writings, where I make the argument that doctrines from on-High that are voluntarily followed cannot survive if there is not some mechanism to eject those who insist on contradicting AND remaining in close proximity. One can do one or the other, but not both.

People of this world are often tripped up by their own faulty assumptions, not to mention their pride. I think of “Parkinson’s Law,” from the satirical book of the same name, that offers a mathematical formula to the effect that, in organizational matters, the amount of time spent on an item varies inversely to its expense. The author illustrates it with a company board meeting at which the first item on the agenda is approval of the proposed $10 million dollar fission plant. Only one on the board has the slightest qualifications on this topic—some of them don’t even know what a fission plant is—and he distrusts the proposal. He is sure that they will just be throwing money down the toilet, but he does not know how to start to explain it to the others. He knows that he would have to refer to the blueprints, and he knows that not one of them would admit that they cannot read blueprints. So he concurs, and the project goes forward after a consideration of 4 minutes. Some on the board, however, are having twinges of conscience that they have not really “pulled their weight,” and they resolve to make up for it with the next item.

(The next item on the agenda is a proposed bicycle shed for the employees, that will cost $4000, and everyone weighs in as to whether the roof should be aluminum or composite shingle, which costs less. For that matter, do the employees need a bicycle shed at all, since they are eternally ungrateful no matter what is done for them. This discussion is resolved in 45 minutes. The third item on the agenda is the brand of coffee that should be served in the office and its means of preparation, and here the board argues away 3 hours, with a possible savings of $15, because each of them has strong opinions as well as considerable knowledge about coffee.)

Now, with modern thinkers enamored with “critical thinking,” their blind side is to imagine that critical thinking carries the day—that it enables them to withstand outside societal pressures. The doctrine of “self-determination according to ones internal compass” is very strong today, and it is almost a hopeless task to convince such persons that their internal compass is defective and at times almost useless in the face of a heart that “is desperate.” I mean, there is a lot of educating that has to be done to convince such persons, and it may be as hopeless a task as was trying to persuade the board members who cannot read blueprints but would never admit to it. One would think you could start with the fact that advertising assumes that people are not that way, that they are not the critical thinkers they claim to be, and that its widespread adoption and success shows that persons can be easily molded, no matter their assertions to the contrary. But this means battling the pride of humanists, which is a very difficult thing to do.

It is what I try to do in TrueTom vs the Apostates. And I do think for all the facts to be laid out clearly does “make JHVH to be very proud.” 

https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2018/11/in-defence-of-shunning.html

Whether this can be done in the courtroom is another matter. I am not even sure of this observation from Srecko:

On 8/5/2019 at 1:35 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

In that case, I think how JW layer had enough time to explain before Court ALL and EVERY SMALL DETAILS on SHUNNING POLICY.

Did he? It may be so, but my recollections of courtroom procedure is that an opposition lawyer can keep the focus extremely narrow when desired, and declare as irrelevant to the Court material that would clarify matters. It once was considered the height of wisdom to carefully consider context. Today, critical thinkers are likely to ban it as an attempt to “raise a straw man argument.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

 

2019-08-07_103423.jpg

Everything I have noticed about BTK46's post is spiteful, arrogant, hateful ... but most importantly ... duplicitous.

He weasels this way, then that way, then refuses to comment on main issues, and wallows in irrelevancy .... and gets MAD about it!

*************************************************************************************************

Billy, if I can give you a small piece of insight ....

You being you completely destroys your credibility for those times when you have important points to make.

I have evolved to the point that credibility is VERY important when considering someone elses' ideas.

Fairy tales are much more believable if they come from a real, bonifide fairy.

If you can't flutter around on gossamer wings and make chocolate from thin air using a sparkly star on a stick .... try reason and logic, and basic human courtesy, and non-vitriolic conversation.

Otherwise, you just become background noise.

I apologize for not having the patience to bury this idea in several thousand melodious words with 15 scriptures, and use the word "Commendable" 9 times.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

The WTB&TS is systematically destroying any credibility they have on any subject.

Anyone that finds out about all this is of course of diseased mind ... like a Deer in the headlights that recognizes the Toyota, does not have the decency to stand there and be hit, and jumps off the road, until the danger passes.

Jesus' mother and stepfather did the same thing by escaping to Egypt, for awhile .......

The following Bulgaria reporting excerpts are THREE photos that can be downloaded and read quite easily ... they are from the link that JWI posted, that I almost missed.

Read them and weep.

 

Bulgaria JWI comment.jpg

Bulgaria 1 of 3.jpg

Bulgaria 2 of 3.jpg

Bulgaria 3 of 3.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

 

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Should the Watchtower lawyer defend disfellowshipping by quoting 2 Timothy 2:17

WT Lawyer would use only such Bible verses about dfd to not put WT Society in more worse position. I guess, how using 2 Tim 2:17 will open another issue, about doctrines, and that is not of interest to Court. Court is not interested to waste their time on "empty talking about doctrines and teachings"    Do not get involved in foolish discussions about spiritual pedigrees or in quarrels and fights about obedience to Jewish laws. These things are useless and a waste of time. Titus 3:9    :))))

But if WT lawyer would like to explain and give Scriptural evidence, for example, WHAT Bible verse said, how is completely justified for JW member/parents, and that it is LEGAL to refuse to answer on daughter phone call ....that will be very interesting.

After all, Scriptures was made for one particular nation in one particular time. Some General principles on human behavior, how we as people must respect other people, can be found on other places too (in human conscience as first place, for example). Religious matters, doctrines and similar theological questions is not of prime interest for Courts,..... maybe in Russia it is :)))  

Shunning on private level is understandable. Shunning on Organizational level in forms of Organizational Dictate and with rules in details (under treat of punishment if you disobey) call on alarm. And that is something that WT lawyer would not be able to defend so easy - with or without Bible verses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

But if WT lawyer would like to explain and give Scriptural evidence, for example...that it is LEGAL to refuse to answer on daughter phone call ....that will be very interesting.

You’re joking! In your eyes it should be illegal for them to not answer the phone?

Recall from the video that this is not a child we are speaking about. Also recall that, far from “throwing her out,” her parents did not want her to leave.

Not too long ago this sort of thing—holding to principle—was called “tough love” and it was widely praised, even if not universally so. Not too long ago parents—Witness or non-Witness—really put their foot down with regard to premarital sex. It wasn’t like today, when many simply buy a package of condoms and tell their daughters to go at it in the upstairs bedroom, where they will be “safe.”

The GreatCourses lectures I have been reviewing lately tells of the changing sexual mores of the 60s. In 1960, it was absolutely shocking for an unmarried young woman living at home to be with child. Fifteen years later it was unremarkable routine. You just are mad that the Witness world is practically the last holdout in embracing the “new morality.”

In fact, the young woman in the video did eventually make her way back to the congregation, child and all, the lowlife she shacked up with having taken off, and she was warmly accepted. It doesn’t always happen that way, but it happens that way often enough so that you should be able to check your outrage at congregation discipline being applied to what doesn’t concern you anyway, as you have departed from it.

Not only could the situation be framed as it was framed in my last comment, as one people being easily swayed—it could also be recognized as the refusal of enemies to recognize the separation of church and state. Practically speaking, the congregation can only fulfill its mandate of staying “separate from the world” if it is allowed to shut the door on ones like yourself who would insist upon bringing the “new and improved morality” of the modern age into it.

The Christian congregation is required by God to stay no part of the world. You are arguing that the stand should not be allowed, and you are using the obvious discomfort of those who have been disciplined and remain resentful of it as a pretext.

I think all that has to be done is to argue that such disciplinary tools as disfellowshipping are essential to a church’s survival with teachings untainted by changing morals. One way to do this (which I have tried to do in my book) is to establish that no religion has been able to do it in the absence of such tools. The book “Secular Faith,” by Mark A Smith, points to moral positions that have changed in religious bodies with regard to 5 separate categories, and concludes that contemporary church members have more in common with atheists today than they do with members of their own denomination from 100 years ago.

https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/01/in-defense-of-shunning.html

Jehovah’s Witnesses want to withstand that trend. You will not allow them to. It is an attack of the irreligious on religion. It is an insistence that we are “come together” on terms of those who would disdain worship.

Most people today, if my guess is correct, would hold that disfellowshipping is pretty harsh, certainly by today’s standards and perhaps by the standards of yesterday. But they also know that it is not inevitable, that it is easily avoidable, that the disfellowshipped person had more than a little to do with his or her discipline, and that, once suffered, it can be reversed, as the WT lawyer pointed out. Depending upon their regard for the morality of the Bible, even those thinking it harsh will give Witnesses begrudging respect for not swaying in the wind, as have others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

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

    No members to show

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

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

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

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

Important Information

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