"Shocking Jehovah's Witness Convention Talk Telling Parents To Shun Children"

[Miles]

.


To Note: This OP has came about more as an eye-opener about Jehovah's Witnesses rather than any attempt at disparagement. Recognizing that every religion, denomination, and congregation has the right to operate as best it sees fit under its particular guidelines, my presentation and comments are strictly the result of surprise and befuddlement after watching the video, Shun Your Family.


I've heard of disfellowship among Jehovah's Witnesses before, but never realized the extent it goes to as a disloyalty test. So, what is disfellowship?

"Disfellowship:
To 'remove the wicked
man' or woman from
the congregation
Watchtower 2011 Jul 15 p.23 simplified edition"

"Jehovah's Witnesses are disfellowshipped for practices such as disagreeing with Watchtower doctrine, smoking or fornication, if judged by the congregation elders as unrepentant. A disfellowshipped person is to be shunned by all family and friends, usually for the remainder of their life, and go through tremendous emotional suffering. Whilst Scriptural precedence limits association with wrongdoers, Watchtower application of disfellowshipping seriously deviates from Bible guidelines.
source

A particularly disturbing comment in the video below:

"We have to put him [Jehovah] before a father, a mother, and even our children if they're disfellowshipped. And if the disfellowshipping of our family is not bad enough, loyalty to Jehovah may mean we even have to endure reproach. We may be hurting because, 'I can't, can't talk to my family member."
(time mark 2:41)

....................


What really amazes me is that the organization refuses to take any responsibility whatsoever for a member becoming "wicked." Yet it does refuse to, and even tells its members refuse to as well. From the video:

"Now we're gonna mention three things NOT to do, and two of them are games not to play.

The first one is, don't play the blame game. Resist self-blame. We may think that we're at fault somehow. Remember that Jehovah holds sinners responsible for their actions. Even young ones that are disfellowshipped . . it's because their relationship with Jehovah was weak.

Avoid the "if only games." "If only we would have preached more, if only I would have talked to them more." "If only we would have done more in the organization. If only. . .If only . . . Don't do that to ourselves"

It's as if every mother, father, and JW preacher knew exactly how to get through to their children and other members, and actually did so. Think that's true? I don't. I've never heard a JW preacher speak, but I have heard a fair number of other Christian ministers, several of whom were so abysmal they couldn't convince a soaking wet dog to come in out of the rain. Thing is, from time to time we all fail in our relationships with others, and despite the JW philosophy, it isn't always the other guy's fault. Sometimes it's our own, in whole or in part. As willing to listen as a Jehovah's Witness may be it's only reasonable to acknowledge the possible failure of parents and preachers to get through. We don't all come with the same set of responsive abilities. Some of us simply have to be approached from another angle before the message sinks in. So for the sake of those Jehovah's Witnesses who are on the brink of becoming one of the "wicked," as well as their families, I think it would be nice if the organization changed their blame game and acknowledged the part it plays in the failures among its membership.


SO: Do you think I have a point here or not?

.

[onewithhim]

Why is it "shocking" it is common knowledge our religion practices shunning (disfelowshipping).

It wasn't "shocking" to me. That was the word my source used, and just happened to be in the topic title I quoted, which can be seen on the opening screen of the video. However, not being familiar with the extent JWs took their shunning, I was surprised at it's callousness. But since thinking about it, what better way to keep the sheep in line than to threaten them with complete severance from family an friends, and put the blame entirely on them. If it wasn't so self-serving and deplorable I might be amused at your organization's clean-hands tactic of denying any responsibility in a members "fall from grace."
Do you honestly believe you and your organization bear absolutely no responsibility in a member's wickedness? Sorry, that was a rhetorical question; of course you don't. Your organization's teaching never fails in getting its message through to everyone, and having done so, any member's failure to live up to its doctrine and commands is entirely theirs. "Resist self-blame" the guy in the video tells his audience. Why? Because your teaching is foolproof, so you have no blame to bear. Yah, sure. Clean-hands-all-around.

• Its OPENLY published on our website www.jw.org (which is one of, if not the most, frequently visited religious websites on earth). It's been oft discussed right here on this website (see links below) so its hardly "shocking" in the sense of a surprising little known fact.

Believe it or not, but I have rarely read any JW literature.

• If you mean shocking as in inappropriate that is a matter of opinion. Shunning is a biblical mandate and a scripturally sound procedure, so it doesn't shock me.

So too is killing practicing male homosexuals. Did you kill your quota last year?


.

Disfellowshipping is absolutely scriptural, and if you read JehovahsWitness's links on it you could see that. If you didn't read any of them, I would think that you really don't want to know the truth about it.

Good grief, have you seen how many links JehovahsWitness posts. If I cared enough to read them all (those he posts just in reply to me) I wouldn't get to bed until 3 am.

"Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolator or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man [or woman]....Remove the wicked man from among yourselves." (I Corinthians 5:11,13)

Why is it shocking to anyone? It's right there in black and white.

In light of god's attitude toward owning others as property (slavery) and to practicing homosexual males---kill 'em all---nothing he says or does shocks me anymore.

By the way, did you kill your quota last year?

Just as god relies on you to dis-fellowship your fellow fornicating, greedy, drunkards, no doubt he's relying on you to help rid the planet of practicing gays----please note that he gives lesbians a bye on this. They can do whatever they want with each other and get away with it.


.

He addresses the lesbian problem also.

"God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another..." (Romans 1:26,27)

[Miles]

“13 If a man has sexual relations with another man as with a woman, they have committed a terrible sin. They must be put to death. They are responsible for their own death." (Leviticus 20:13)

isn't it more than just my assumption, but what god wants? Was it not god himself who uttered those words, "They must be put to death"?

DOES EVERY WORD OF THE BIBLE HAVE TO APPLY TO EVERYONE TO BE INSPIRED AND FREE OF ERROR?

Every word in the bible is valuable but not everything applies to everyone all of the time. It is not "disregarding" a law that if said law us not applicable.

To illustrate:

• Peter and John were sent by Jesus to go and get a donkey. That instruction does not apply to me or anyone other than those two first century disciples.

... another example

• There was a mandate for the Israelites wandering the desert, to go outside the camp, dig a hole in the ground squat over it when they need to defecate; and when done to bury their waste. This law existed to protect the people at the time from disease but does not apply to people with modern plumbing not living in a tent.

Even when the Mosaic law was in force certain laws only,applied to certain people, for example ...

• Mensruating women were required to self-isolate for seven days. This law did not apply to men.

Surely you must recognize the difference between a law that has relevance and one that does not. Or am I mistaken here? Obviously a specific instruction to two people is not meant for others. And a mandate to a specific people is not meant to apply to others. But there is no such specific qualification in Leviticus 20:13, so why would god's instruction in it

"If a man has sexual relations with another man as with a woman, they have committed a terrible sin. They must be put to death. They are responsible for their own death."

not now apply to all good Christians like yourself? (We'll get to that in a bit)

DOES CLAIMING A LAW IS NOT APPLICABLE AMOUNT TO DISREGARDING IT?

It certainly can when it's given a nod and then brushed away for no better reason than to avoid adhering to it

Recognising correct application of law doesn't amount to "disregarding" law (if by disregarding as in injustifiably ignoring and demeaning said law). Nor does it imply the law was/is faulty. Americans don't "disregarding" British law which mandates one drives on the left, they recognise it, but also recognise that since they live outside the UK it simply does not apply to them?

So just how does this recognition amount to claiming it's not applicable? In short, what is your "justification" for ignoring Leviticus 20:13? Why does god's law not apply to everyone, or at least good Christians and Jews? The answer: Jehovah's Witnesses simply interpret NT writings as doing away with every law in the Old Testament, even the 10 Cs. So although Paul said:

"16 All Scripture is given by God. And all Scripture is useful for teaching and for showing people what is wrong in their lives. It is useful for correcting faults and teaching the right way to live. 17 Using the Scriptures, those who serve God will be prepared and will have everything they need to do every good work."

this can be finessed as needed, but do raise a question. To wit: Just what do JWs find useful for teaching and for showing people what is wrong in their lives, and useful for correcting faults and teaching the right way to live in God's law stating "If a man has sexual relations with another man as with a woman, they have committed a terrible sin. They must be put to death"?

The apparent Jehovah's Witnesses ANSWER: That the first sentence should be considered, and homosexuality should be discouraged; and the second sentenced should be ignored, and everyone should forget about killing homosexuals.

Nice cherry-picking. Kind of renders Paul's all, pretty much a blunder or misstatement doesn't it, or at least worthy of ignoring.


.

[JehovahsWitness]

... a mandate to a specific people is not meant to apply to others. But there is no such specific qualification in Leviticus 20:13

So, to clarify, are you arguing that there is scriptural evidence that Levitical law was universal given to all peoples and all races never to be abrogated? If so, can you please present said evidence.

To learn more please see other posts related to...

HOMOSEXUALITY, HOMOPHOBIA and ... THE MOSIAC LAW

[Miles]

... a mandate to a specific people is not meant to apply to others. But there is no such specific qualification in Leviticus 20:13

So, to clarify, are you arguing that there is scriptural evidence that Levitical law was universal given to all peoples and all races never to be abrogated? If so, can you please present said evidence.

That's how I and millions of Christians read it.

Isaiah 40:8
Grass dies and flowers fall, but the word of our God lasts forever.”

Please note the lack of any qualifiers.


.

[JehovahsWitness]

...what do JWs find useful for teaching and for showing people what is wrong in their lives, and useful for correcting faults and teaching the right way to live in God's law stating "If a man has sexual relations with another man as with a woman, they have committed a terrible sin. They must be put to death"?

NOTE that Paul pointed out all scripture is useful not all laws are applicable.



HOW ARE THE LEVITIAL LAWS AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL ACTS USEFUL?

They are useful in they reveal how God feels about certain conduct and subsequently the attitude Christians should have about them, namely ...

• YHWH hates all sexual perversion as it violates the natural order of things

• Worshippers of God must not tolerate such unclean actions in their communities

• Sexual misconduct of any kind can render someone worthy of death

Under the Jewish system, divine condemnaation to death came swiftly through their legal system, while the under the Christian system judgement can only lead to expulsion from the congregation. In both cases the principle is the same, such things are bad in God's eyes and anyone that wants to please him must share His view or risk destruction (see1 Cor 6:9, 10)






JW

CHRISTIAN LAW

Does the promise that Gods word is eternal mean all the laws therin are universally applicable?
viewtopic.php?p=1065812#p1065812

Can laws which are not directly applicable still be useful?
viewtopic.php?p=1065886#p1065886

Is it "cherry-picking" to recognise laws must be legally applicable ?
viewtopic.php?p=1055839#p1055839

Why do Christians wear MIXED FABRICS and eat SEAFOOD yet prohibit homosexual acts ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 72#p996772

Do Christians cherry-pick "old testament" laws?
viewtopic.php?p=1055839#p1055839

Did Jesus "cherry-pick" the Torah?
viewtopic.php?p=1020092#p1020092

ABOLITION

Did Jesus not say he had not come to abolish the law [Mat 5:17] ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 78#p965278

Does Mat 5:18 not indicate that none of the Mosaic law would ever pass away?
viewtopic.php?p=1042911#p1042911

To read more please go to other posts related to ...

CHRISTIANITY, THE MOSIAC LAW and ...SABBATH KEEPING

[JehovahsWitness]

Isaiah 40:8

Grass dies and flowers fall, but the word of our God lasts forever”

LASTING (ie existing) forever does not necessarily equate to being universally applicable forever. If a couple's marriage " lasted forever" this wouldn't mean they would be married to everyone. If we understand "the word of God" to refer to everything God has been recorded in scripture as saying, this passage does not further the argument that everything he said was law and every law he said was applicable to everyone.


ETERNALLY USEFUL

A thing can be said as "lasting forever" in that it always does that for which it was designed or purposed. (To mix my metaphors..) if I were to say these are shoes that will "last forever" it doesn't mean can wear them as a hat without looking riduculous. Inspired scripture is made up of peoms, songs, laws, prophecies, stories, warnings, curses and blessings and much much more. Everything in it is useful, as Paul said "good for teaching" but from there to claim that all its laws are universaly and eternal is a leap as illogical as wearing your shoes on your head.

Correctly understood Isaiah 40:8 is saying that God's words cannot be destroyed or wiped from the historical record and everything in scripture will always service the purpose for which it went fourth and remain eternally useful.




CHRISTIAN LAW

Does the promise that Gods word is eternal mean all the laws therin are universally applicable?
viewtopic.php?p=1065812#p1065812

Can laws which are not directly applicable still be useful? [this post]
viewtopic.php?p=1065886#p1065886

Is it "cherry-picking" to recognise laws must be legally applicable ?
viewtopic.php?p=1055839#p1055839

Why do Christians wear MIXED FABRICS and eat SEAFOOD yet prohibit homosexual acts ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 72#p996772

Do Christians cherry-pick "old testament" laws?
viewtopic.php?p=1055839#p1055839

Did Jesus "cherry-pick" the Torah?
viewtopic.php?p=1020092#p1020092

ABOLITION

Did Jesus not say he had not come to abolish the law [Mat 5:17] ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 78#p965278

Does Mat 5:18 not indicate that none of the Mosaic law would ever pass away?
viewtopic.php?p=1042911#p1042911

To read more please go to other posts related to ...

CHRISTIANITY, THE MOSIAC LAW and ...SABBATH KEEPING

[Purple Knight]

They're talking about peoples' relationships with God being unsatisfactory. This is extremely nebulous and I wish they would just tell us what people are doing that's so bad as to kick them out. If they really did something that bad, no it's not anybody else's fault and no, nobody else should be blaming themselves.

I can't judge them too much because I think there's another side to fall off of this horse, and that's not cutting that cord, or being shamed for trying to cut the cord, when accidents of birth stick you with a really, really bad apple. There are bad apple children, and bad apple parents.

This is a super religious, pious community. They can't be tolerating certain behaviours.

The minister talks about getting people back who go back because of the community, and wouldn't it be awful if you still interacted with this person when they would have otherwise gone back out of wanting that interaction. Some people might relent, but some might also see the harsh treatment as a sign they don't want to be around people who do that to them after all, where kindness and understanding might have brought them back.

Since blood and marital relationships are not dissolved by a congregational disfellowshiping action, the situation within the family circle requires special consideration. A woman whose husband is disfellowshiped is not released from the Scriptural requirement to respect his husbandly headship over her; only death or Scriptural divorce from a husband results in such release. (Rom. 7:1-3; Mark 10:11, 12) A husband likewise is not released from loving his wife as “one flesh” with him even though she should be disfellowshiped. (Matt. 19:5, 6; Eph. 5:28-31) Parents similarly remain under the injunction to ‘go on bringing up their children in the discipline and mental-regulating of Jehovah’ even though a baptized son or a daughter yet a minor is disfellowshiped. (Eph. 6:4) And sons and daughters, of whatever age, remain under the obligation to ‘honor their father and mother’ although one or both of these may be disfellowshiped. (Matt. 15:4; Eph. 6:2) This is not difficult to understand when we consider that, according to the Scriptures, even political officials of this world are to be shown due honor by Christians.​—Rom. 13:1, 7. - The Watchtower 1974 August 1 page. 470

There may be many people who find a way to make this work, but certainly there are conflicts of interest here, particularly for a wife or a child moreso than a husband.

I can imagine how this would go if it was my family. My alcoholic mother would surely have been kicked out eventually, probably after around the 219th time she went crazy and started smashing car windows with a circular saw blade. Then, like always, she wants more booze, and because she has no money, I'm forced to get it for her. When I was as young as nine the first time, and the only way I could get it was to beg the college students I was tutoring. I don't imagine the congregation would kick me out over it, but when she screams for more booze, whether I honour her request or not I expect I have at least disrespected God. It's not exactly the JWs' fault that the Fifth Commandment says what it says, though. They're just trying to enforce it correctly.

[Miles]

...what do JWs find useful for teaching and for showing people what is wrong in their lives, and useful for correcting faults and teaching the right way to live in God's law stating "If a man has sexual relations with another man as with a woman, they have committed a terrible sin. They must be put to death"?

NOTE that Paul pointed out all scripture is useful not all laws are applicable.

If this is truly the case then No! Paul (speaking for god) was wrong.

1)
All Scripture is useful (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
Biblical laws are scriptural
___________________
Biblical laws are useful

2)
Useful laws must be applicable
Biblical laws are useful
________________________
Biblical laws must be applicable

• YHWH hates all sexual perversion as it violates the natural order of things

Yeah, why is that? Why does god create some people with an inborn attraction to those of the same sex, yet hates it when they exercise this attraction, but heterosexuals who have an inborn attraction to those of the opposite sex can go ahead and play around? One might think god's homophobia is actually anxiety about the possibility of being a homosexual himself. Beating down his latent homosexual tendencies and guilt by lashing out at his nemesis, as well as all sex itself. You know, he does have an inordinate preoccupation with sexual matters, dictating a lot of sexually related "shoulds" and "should nots."

Moreover, although homosexuality, just like left handedness, is not common, it is normal (it occurs in about 4% of the population and in every culture throughout the world) as well as occurring throughout the animal kingdom. So, although it isn't common it hardly violates the natural order of things. For whatever reason god has seen fit to make sure the natural order of things "dictates" that a certain percentage of the population will be homosexuals, just as it "dictates" a certain percentage of people will be left handed.

• Worshippers of God must not tolerate such unclean actions in their communities

Why not? What harm do they bring to it? What do you do if you find one in your community? Give them the boot? Of course you do because it's the loving thing to do.

• Sexual misconduct of any kind can render someone worthy of death

[/indent]

Indeed it does. Think masturbators deserve death? According to what JW.org says

"A spiritually unhealthy habit, masturbation instills attitudes that foster self-centeredness and corrupt the mind."

I would certainly think masturbatory conduct that corrupted the mind would be sexual misconduct, don't you? And in turn deserve an "Off with their heads" solution.

Think there are any closet masturbators among the JW fold, corrupting their minds, and in turn sealing their own death warrant. Bet there are.


.

[JehovahsWitness]

________________________
Biblical laws must be applicable

Indeed, but the scripture you provided does not establish that all biblical laws must be universaly and eternally applicable . What scripture supports that principle ?







RELATED POSTS

Does the promise that Gods word is eternal mean all the laws therin are universally applicable?
viewtopic.php?p=1065812#p1065812

What can we learn from Levitical law about sexual immorality?
viewtopic.php?p=1065810#p1065810

Is it "cherry-picking" to recognise laws must be legally applicable ?
viewtopic.php?p=1055839#p1055839

Does every word in the bible have to apply to everyone?
viewtopic.php?p=1055876#p1055876

Does Mat 5:18 not indicate that none of the Mosaic law would ever pass away?
viewtopic.php?p=1042911#p1042911

[We_Are_VENOM]

Disfellowshipping is absolutely scriptural, and if you read JehovahsWitness's links on it you could see that. If you didn't read any of them, I would think that you really don't want to know the truth about it.

"Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolator or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man [or woman]....Remove the wicked man from among yourselves." (I Corinthians 5:11,13)

Why is it shocking to anyone? It's right there in black and white.

Um, not so fast.

The problem with all that is; it is one thing to say that you no longer associate with someone who is a habitual sinner (assuming your own life is in spiritual order), however, Jehovah's Witnesses shun/disfellowship folks who leaves their organization, which (oftentimes) has absolutely nothing to do with a habitual sin.

And that is the problem.

There could be a person who lives a Christ-like life, but decide that the Jehovah's Witness organization isn't something he/she wants to be part of and leave...and they get shunned/blacklisted for that reason alone...which is unBiblical and disgraceful.