"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?

.

[JehovahsWitness]

No one said that it is impossible, we are saying that it happens whenever and wherever it happens...you and onewithhim almost seem hesitant to admit that it happens at all, and this is clearly not the case when you talk to exwitnesses.

I remind you that my very first post pointed out that it is a matter or public knowledge that we Jehovahs Witnesses practice biblical shunning; the issue is what does that involve. We have presented policy, documented evidence and even personal testimony that out policies are respected and that includes the fact that anyone that simply stops coming to out church for whatever reason faces no disciplinary actions whatsoever.


JW

[We_Are_VENOM]

But any overview of what most every sect of Christendom DOES shows us that they are NOT following Jesus' teachings. They ALL fail in one or more issues.

And that is why I don't follow any particular organized religion, precisely because of what you just said; they all fail in one or more issues.

But the problem with you making that statement is simple; Jehovah's Witnesses also fail in one or more issues.

I recall a week or so ago laying out at least 10 issues with JW theology.

The pot calling the kettle black.

Most of them will go to war, won't they? Jesus said to LOVE our enemies (Matthew 5:44).

I guess John the Baptist should have told these soldiers to, instead of "be content with their wages" (Luke 3:14)...he should have told them to "love your enemies"

So, either John is contradicting Jesus, or something else is going on here, which is probably that "love your enemies" has nothing to do with not going to war if you are justified in doing so.

This is just one of many examples of Jehovah's Witnesses taking scriptures out of context...they do it all over the Bible.

Jesus said to be NO PART of the world. (John 17:16)

So, if the entire world began to worship Jehovah, we are not to be part of it? See, this is exactly what I mean

Most sects of Christendom are involved in politics.

Well, when you can provide a scripture which prohibits Christians from partaking in politics, then I will be on the bandwagon with you.

However, there is no scripture or principle stating such.

See, JW's try their best to be sooo different from everyone else, that they end up overdosing on it, thus venturing further and further away from Biblical truth in the process.

Jesus said we must love his Father and sanctify His name (Matthew 6:9,10; Matthew 22:37). Do ANY religions do this?

No problems there...EXCEPT for the fact that it is less about his name, and more about the organization.

If it was all about his name, I should be able to sanctify his name without being in addition a member of a organization. So it isn't all about his name at that point, is it?

There is much more, but you can eliminate religious sects from being Christ's followers by applying just the differences I have listed above.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I remind you that my very first post pointed out that it is a matter or public knowledge that we Jehovahs Witnesses practice biblical shunning; the issue is what does that involve. We have presented policy, documented evidence and even personal testimony that out policies are respected and that includes the fact that anyone that simply stops coming to out church for whatever reason faces no disciplinary actions whatsoever.

JW

You also stated that if a person disassociates himself from the organization, that this person may not face official disciplinary actions as handed down by the leaders, but that if the person's immediate family decides to shun the former member, that this action isn't necessarily discouraged by the organization.

That is my primary focus in all of this...and that is my concern.

[JehovahsWitness]

You also stated that if a person disassociates himself from the organization, that this person may not face official disciplinary actions as handed down by the leaders, but that if the person's immediate family decides to shun the former member, that this action isn't necessarily discouraged by the organization.

That is my primary focus in all of this...and that is my concern.

I said nothing of the kind. "unofficial shunning*" is indeed something is discouraged; someone that has committed no disfellowshipping offense should not be treated as if he has. Our organisation actively encourages its members to treat those that have stopped coming to out meetings our brothers and sisters . Obviously, the individual has distanced themselves so there will be... distance (ie relationships will have been damaged) but from there to speak about not discouraging "shunning*" when no misconduct is involved, is a misrepresentation of Jehovah's Witness teachings.


* biblical shunning involves not greeting or frequenting the person outside of what is strictly necessary.

JW


RELATED POSTS

Can a member leave the Jehovahs Witnesses religion without being shunned by friends and family?
viewtopic.php?p=1066622#p1066622

Can a Jehovah's Witnesses be shunned for no other reason but that they chose to walk away from'the organisation ?
viewtopic.php?p=1060595#p1060595

Can entire congregation unilaterally "unofficially" shun a member ?
viewtopic.php?p=1066088#p1066088

Do Jehovah's Witnesses have to hide their reasons for leaving the religion from friends and family To avoid bejng shunned?
viewtopic.php?p=1066677#p1066677

Can a baptised Witness that has already left the organisation be disfellowshipped?
viewtopic.php?p=1066460#p1066460

Why is there an apparent conflict between the official JWs of disfellowshipping and what is stated on many ex-witness sites?
viewtopic.php?p=1066954#p1066954

Why don't many ex-witness support groups emphasis that leaving does NOT equate to being shunned?
viewtopic.php?p=1066583#p1066583

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

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES , DISFELLOWSHIPPING/SHUNNING and ... ORGANISATIONAL INFALLIBILITY

[We_Are_VENOM]

I said nothing of the kind. "unofficial shunning*" is indeed something is discouraged

Ohhh, so since you said "nothing of the kind", then I won't be able to go back in the archives and successfully dig up some counter-factuals, will I?

; someone that has committed no disfellowshipping offense should not be treated as if he has.

The keyword is "should". Exwitnesses have given testimony stating that when they disassociated themselves from the organization, they were shunned by members of their families.

I understand what the "official" policy is, but there is an unofficial trickle down effect of disassociating from the organization that isn't being mentioned and is the elephant in the room.

Our organisation actively encourages its members to treat those that have stopped coming to out meetings our brothers and sisters . Obviously, the individual has distanced themselves so there will be... distance (ie relationships will have been damaged) but from there to speak about not discouraging "shunning*" when no misconduct is involved, is a misrepresentation of Jehovah's Witness teachings.

Well again, that is the problem...because in some cases, the act of "distancing/stop coming out to the meetings" will have the trickle down effect of "distancing themselves from relationships", relationships which are damaged from the distancing from the organization.

Active JW family members will have the attitude of "if you ain't cool with the organization, you ain't cool with me/us".

"I don't talk to Billy Jo Bob, because he is no longer part of the truth".

You know, that kind of stuff.

Everything goes back to loyalty and allegiance to the organization...now, I aint saying the WTS is a cult.

But what I am saying is...things seems a little cultish.

[JehovahsWitness]

Everything goes back to loyalty and allegiance to the organization...

How can one be expressing allegence to the organisation by actively being disobedient to the organisation?

... if the person's immediate family decides to shun the former member, that this action isn't necessarily discouraged by the organization.

I have already stated several times that this is untrue. Our organisation states members that stop coming to out meetings (without any improper behaviour) should be treated and viewed as our brothers and sisters; you accept that policy exists but somehow continue to criticize Jehovahs Witnesses. Your argument being the members are both cultishly obedient and unswervingly loyal yet suggest we are at the same time also disobedient to organisational instructions and independently disloyal.

Can you not see how illogical your argument is? Which are we, cultishly loyal and blindly mind controlled to instructions (in which case we would NOT unofficially shun ex-members as that is contrary to instructions ) or disobedient and disloyal in which case we would side with the person anyway and ... NOT shun them because they're kindred spirits?




JW

[We_Are_VENOM]

How can one be expressing allegence to the organisation by actively being disobedient to the organisation?

Well, that would be equivalent to sinning against the organization..in other words "you all sin against the organization and fall short of the glory of Jehovah".

They sin against the organization in that regard, but they make up for it by going harder in field service.

I have already stated several times that this is untrue. Our organisation states members that stop coming to out meetings (without any improper behaviour) should be treated and viewed as our brothers and sisters; you accept that policy exists but somehow continue to criticize Jehovahs Witnesses.

First off, "members that stop coming to our meetings" doesn't necessarily describe a disassociated member...as one can stop going to the meetings and still be an active member, per se.

So, I just want to see you say "disassociated members who no longer belong to the organization should be treated and viewed as our brothers and sister".

A sleight hand trick with the wording there.

Stuff like that has to be nipped in the bud, quickly.

Your argument being the members are both cultishly obedient and unswervingly loyal yet suggest we are at the same time also disobedient to organisational instructions and independently disloyal.

Nahhh, just when it comes to certain things, like this one.

Can you not see how illogical your argument is? Which are we, cultishly loyal and blindly mind controlled to instructions (in which case we would NOT unofficially shun ex-members as that is contrary to instructions ) or disobedient and disloyal in which case we would side with the person anyway and ... NOT shun them because they're kindred spirits?

First off...

1. I am only going by the testimony of those who lived through it...and they seem to paint a different picture than the one you are painting with all of the fancy pancy policies and guidelines and such.

2. I've seen the doctrine flip-flops for myself, and the down right terrible justifications and backpedaling coming from OFFICIAL WTS literature...so in essence, practically nothing in it can be trusted and we should take anything they say with a grain of salt.

[JehovahsWitness]

2. I've seen the doctrine flip-flops for myself...

What have "doctrine flip-flops " got to do with anything, are you suggesting that I am referring to policy that is no longer in place? If so where is your official documentation for these so called doctrinal revisions?

[2timothy316]

I left the Witnesses for 18 years and wasn't shunned. I just stopped associating with Witnesses thus didn't have any close friends that were Witnesses but that was my choice. So not only is it possible to leave and not be shunned but I am proof as I lived it.

And that means what?

I am sure that there were some catholic young men that weren't sexually abused, but that says nothing about the ones who were, does it?

I have no idea why you're making the comment when my comment was directed at JW and not at anything you were talking about.

[We_Are_VENOM]

.

Wait a minute, before we get into all of that...in the previous post you said..

Our organisation states members that stop coming to out meetings (without any improper behaviour) should be treated and viewed as our brothers and sisters; you accept that policy exists but somehow continue to criticize Jehovahs Witnesses.

I had missed "members" in my previous response to this quote...and my response to this was based on what I thought you were implying...but after you FAILED to address my response to it, I was compelled to take a second look at the above quote, and found out that I was right on the money to begin with.

Because it is exactly what I thought, you are still focusing on active "members", when I asked you about disassociated ex members.

So basically what you are saying is; members who stop going to meetings are still treated and viewed as brothers and sisters...which is no surprise (for the most part), because they are still MEMBERS, right?

But what I asked you about is disassociated folks who are NO LONGER MEMBERS, and do they get the same treatment of being viewed as brothers/sisters "in Christ" (at the very least)...and you conveniently disingenuously ignored that part of the post and chose to focus on the second half of the post.

Tsk, tsk. SMH.

What have "doctrine flip-flops " got to do with anything, are you suggesting that I am referring to policy that is no longer in place? If so where is your official documentation for these so called doctrinal revisions?

What I am saying is; based on the doctrinal flip flops and backpedaling which comes directly from the governing body, why I am not to believe in addition to that, that some witnesses may go against the grain (when it comes to disobeying certain policies).

The doctrinal flip flops itself goes against what was previously written, just like JW's will go against certain policies that are currently written...and the testimonials of ex witnesses are a testament to this.