How Common is Shunning?

[TrueTomHarley]

If it is one of those frustratingly hard to pin down situations, there is no reason not to pin it down your way, whatever you decide that is.

Among the reasons we are asked to respect the decisions of a judicial committee is that they have had opportunity to examine everything relevant and will know the situation better than us. In the case of a close family member, this is rarely true. Thus:

6 hours ago, Anna said:

Family members decide according to their conscience the extent to which they will continue family discourse". 

One factor a family member might know of is the one you suggested - a person who no longer practices anything wrong but declines to rejoin the congregation. Reasonably, that could have a bearing on one's conscience. 

 

6 hours ago, Anna said:

If it was a conscience matter, then if someones conscience said it was ok for them to spend time with their disfellowshipped relative, perhaps even go on vacation with them, then it shouldn't be a problem

Take the organization at their word. Go on vacation with them if your conscience permits it, perhaps because of the situation already described. If it raises eyebrows, and you wish to explain, do so. At worst there is some peer pressure. Perhaps one may not be considered 'an example' and as such, may lose or not be considered for privileges. So be it. They are voluntary things anyway. If they disappear over such a thing, they disappear. It is a choice you can make.

Some of the eyebrow-raising, in the above scenario of one who desists wrongdoing but does not wish to return, will have to do with separateness as much as prior congregation discipline. Separateness was a real concept in Hebrew times - there is no reason to think it is less so in modern times.  Our people are taught the Bible principle that separateness is a good thing - remain separate from the world lest its influence gradually seep back into us, and through us, the congregation. There is no reason for the GB to underplay that concept just because it is not popular. A person today might think it narrow-minded or judgemental, but there is no way it is not scriptural. 

One might get experience pressure (and who is to say that is such a horrible thing? - people have been meddling in each other's affairs since the beginning of time), but the point is, there is no actual sanction over it. Do it if you want to.

6 hours ago, Anna said:

and no one should judge that decision, just like if someone decided their conscience allowed them to take minor blood fractions

One reason no one would be judged over yes/no on fractions is that they would not know about it. I know of no one else's stand on fractions other than my own and my wife's. It is the same with your conduct with a df'd family member. Discretion helps the medicine go down. 

Admittedly, the tone of theocratic counsel is toward firmness. It is: 'Consider that the counsel of df ones applies to a relative, unless you can think of why it wouldn't' - instead of the other way around. Nonetheless, based upon factors that only a family member would know, one might adhere to avoiding association with a df'd relative to a lesser extent than a non-related congregation member.

[TrueTomHarley]

14 hours ago, Anna said:

Here is the case, but I know you probably won't bother to read it, and I don't blame you, you will just have to trust me that the quote I posted is really there

Hmmm. Not only what you say, but also this description of the plaintiff:

"He contended his wife was a messy housekeeper and that caused his angry explosions of verbal abuse."

Today one does not pass Go nor collect $200 after such an incident. Abuse is a big no-no. With but minimal fabrication, one can imagine his favorite Elvis song: "Get out in that kitchen and rattle those pots and pans!"

 

[Srecko Sostar]

error

 

 

[Srecko Sostar]

19 hours ago, Anna said:

But that's not what I wanted to say, but what is interesting is that the WT appealing the case mentions this in defense: "Disfellowshipping is not “a mandatory church edict” that removes family love. Family members decide according to their conscience the extent to which they will continue family discourse".  Page 9, par 31

How can that be reconciled with what really happens?

Natural God given Conscience vs Artificial, so called "bible trained conscience", imposed and ruled by GB

I hope that, giving like, upvote and approval on your perception ability, given by me to your comments would not insult you  

[Srecko Sostar]

16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

corporeal punishment

Geoffrey Jackson expose before ARC in 2015 mentioned this issue in answering to Judge questions. 

[Srecko Sostar]

20 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I say the Christian congregation does not tell Witness families not to associate with df'd children.

2016 Convention movie program rejects, disproves such yours conviction. At 6:15 phone ringing but mum ignored daughter call.

 

[TrueTomHarley]

5 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

2016 Convention movie program rejects, disproves such yours conviction.

It disproves nothing. It is entirely in harmony with what I stated:

 

13 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Admittedly, the tone of theocratic counsel is toward firmness. It is: 'Consider that the counsel of df ones applies to a relative, unless you can think of why it wouldn't' - instead of the other way around. 

It is an example in a given drama, one in which the young woman portrayed is decidedly unrepentant over wrongdoing, and she even says that for her parents to have resumed contact would have been to her detriment spiritually.

It does not negate:

 

13 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Nonetheless, based upon factors that only a family member would know, one might adhere to avoiding association with a df'd relative to a lesser extent than a non-related

Not everyone is like the 'typical' example portrayed at the convention. Admittedly, there is no encouragement to consider that your df'd child (if he or she is) is atypical, but a parent will know the child best and can make whatever stand they think appropriate, given any atypical facts or circumstances.

[Srecko Sostar]

30 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Geoffrey Jackson expose before ARC in 2015 mentioned this issue in answering to Judge questions

 

[Srecko Sostar]

6 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It disproves nothing. It is entirely in harmony with what I stated:

 

Apologize, did I not understand this sentence quite correct?  "...Christian congregation does not tell Witness families not to associate with df'd children."....

I based my comment on this particular sentence.  

[TrueTomHarley]

Read all comments again and you should be able to reconcile what was said. It is not hard.

[Srecko Sostar]

20 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I can believe age 10 or early teens without a problem. But not 6.

If you "believe" in something what you see or hear directly that is not faith or "believing". You need to reconsider  the concept of belief, believing.

If you not want or if you can not accepting reality how that is possible and more of that, how that happened in some JW congregations, your personal attitude and opinion, not deleting reality of life events.  

[Srecko Sostar]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Read all comments again and you should be able to reconcile what was said. It is not hard.

:)))) perhaps i need "simplified edition"