If shunning loved ones is scriptural, why does Watchtower publicly deny the practice?

Shunning deniers: Veikko Leinonen (center) is the latest Watchtower representative to downplay the shunning policy in front of the media
Shunning deniers: Veikko Leinonen (center) is the latest Watchtower representative to downplay the shunning policy in front of the media

Watchtower representative Veikko Leinonen recently made an appearance on Finnish television in which he essentially denied that Jehovah’s Witness parents shun children who leave.

Asked whether a young Jehovah’s Witness can leave freely and start his own life, Leinonen replied “Absolutely, absolutely freely and we hope they will return freely and there will be no obstacles.”

Further pressed by the journalist to clarify whether such a person would be shunned, Leinonen emphatically replied “no” several times – perhaps wary that Jehovah’s Witnesses have recently been under fire in Finland for their judicial policies.

In dismissing the issue of shunning, Leinonen followed in the footsteps of other Watchtower representatives from various countries who have similarly found it necessary to misrepresent Witness beliefs to the media.

Regardless of his motives, those who are familiar with Watchtower doctrine will recognize Leinonen’s denial as a total contradiction of the way Witnesses are instructed. The July 15, 2011 Watchtower (to cite just one example) went so far as to liken disfellowshipped teenagers to Nadab and Abihu, the errant priests who were struck down by God for offering illegitimate fire.

“Today, Jehovah does not immediately execute those who violate his laws,” the article observed. “He lovingly gives them an opportunity to repent from their unrighteous works. How would Jehovah feel, though, if the parents of an unrepentant wrongdoer kept putting Him to the test by having unnecessary association with their disfellowshipped son or daughter?” (see w11 7/15 p.32)

It is this and other coercion from Watchtower that has a tangible impact on countless families, which are needlessly ripped apart whenever a family member decides to no longer subject himself or herself to the Governing Body’s self-proclaimed authority.

But Witnesses would do well to consider why it should be necessary for their representatives to employ evasion and deception when confronted on this issue. After all, is not the disfellowshipping arrangement supposedly a commandment from Jehovah? Should it not, on that basis, be something Watchtower representatives should be eager to explain fully and transparently, regardless of the PR ramifications?

Consider the following passage from a 2008 Watchtower…

“For more than 40 years, Jeremiah contended with apathy, rejection, ridicule, and even physical violence. (Jer. 20:1, 2) At times, he felt like giving up. Yet, he persevered in declaring an unpopular message to a largely unreceptive people. In God’s strength, Jeremiah accomplished what he could never have done on his own.—Read Jeremiah 20:7-9.” – w08 7/15 p.7

If Jeremiah supposedly persevered with an “unpopular message” under threat of physical violence, should this not serve as an example to Watchtower and its PR personnel? If a Jehovah’s Witness fails to expound on a commandment of Jehovah when directly questioned on the subject simply because this command is “unpopular,” is he not yielding to fear of man and revealing a shame of God himself?

There can be no doubt that Watchtower’s policy of shunning family members is “unpopular” with the public, and with good reason. It is a sadistic means of utilizing a person’s family as a weapon of punishment for leaving his or her religion, and as such represents a breach of basic human rights.

But rather than face the music and extoll the perceived virtues of their cruel practice whatever the backlash, Watchtower buckles under the slightest media scrutiny. Its devious denials and attempts at evasion are both cowardly and vulgar.

Though their crude tactics may throw the occasional journalist off the scent in the short term, there are some of us who are taking careful note and will continue to hold this organization to account.

 

new-cedars-signature2

 

 

 

 

 

Further reading…

113 thoughts on “If shunning loved ones is scriptural, why does Watchtower publicly deny the practice?

  • June 23, 2014 at 12:08 pm
    Permalink

    @William Niles.
    Actually the name Jehovah was invented by a Spanish monk by the name of Raymondus Martini around 1270 C.E. (Watchtower Feb. 1, 1980) so the name was never in the Hebrew or Greek scriptures but a made up name by the Catholics. According to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, in the Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary part, #3050 (Jah) stands for God but #1943 hovah means mischief or ruin and another form of #1942 and means naughty, noisome, perverse things, very wickedness. So, the Catholics came up with a name for the Tetragrammaton and when Rutherford chose the name Jehovah’s Witnesses, he probably didn’t know that it was a made up name by a Spanish Catholic Monk. He probably did think that Jehovah actually was in the Bible and was God’s name. But the Witnesses lie. That man who was representing the Watchtower absolutely knew that it practices shunning of people who leave the organization and was evading telling the truth. The Bible says of Satan that he is a liar and the father of the lie. I’d say that the name of the Watchtower’s God (Jehovah) fits them to a tee. That man in Cedar’s video and the Society’s website, not telling the truth about the Watchtower’s policy of shunning, have no problem with lying. That name (Jehovah) fits them perfectly and ANYONE in the Organization who won’t tell the whole truth about shunning is IN ON THE LIE and if they do believe in the Bible at all, THEY AREN’T AFRAID OF GOD’S JUDGEMENT AGAINST THEM. That tells me that they either don’t even believe in the Bible or they have put themselves in the place of God.

  • June 23, 2014 at 2:35 pm
    Permalink

    Marking one within the congregation as spiritually weak was always business as usual when I attended the Kingdom Hall. This was one step short of shunning and was carried out by keeping contact minimal. It is amazing how many levels of judgement there are employed by the witnesses; spiritually weak, inactive, not reaching out, competitive spirit, spiritually immature, independent, worldly, materialistic, privately reproved, publicly reproved, disfellowshipped, disassociated, apostate.
    My mother recently passed away, she had been ill for many years and my brother would speak to me as long as I was there to aid her. Now that she is gone, nothing. He had not been attending meetings for thirty years but now all of a sudden he and his wife are following the shunning policy of the ‘Organization’. For Watchtower to pretend this is not under their direction is inexcusable. Excellent article and video, thanks so much.

  • June 23, 2014 at 3:13 pm
    Permalink

    Personally I do not find this lying to be eye opening or anything new, because from my personal experience when I was in the jw religion, I found that most witnesses felt ultra superior to non witnesses and they did not really care how they treated individuals who were not witnesses. I found that it did not matter if they lied to “worldy people” as they were considered to be the “walking dead”. It was disconcerting for me to see members who belonged to what was supposed to be a loving religion, treat outsiders dishonestly and disrespectfully, which to me was extremely repugnant.

  • June 23, 2014 at 3:22 pm
    Permalink

    @rob. I agree with you. It has always amazed me how everyone I know in the “truth” thinks that the Bible belongs to them and only them and nobody else even has a right to it.

  • June 23, 2014 at 4:49 pm
    Permalink

    The Watchtower Society teaches that they are the people of God, as ancient Jews thought they were. As the ancient Jews, Witnesses feel that they are special in God’s eyes, so the pagans are unbelievers who will be destroyed in Armaggedon. So, they have to shun the apostates. The main problem is their fundamentalist view of the Bible. Of course, the Watchtower’s spokesmen need to lie to maintain their double standard, to save their governing body of liars. This is their theocratic warfare. They don’t want to show their real face before the Media.

  • June 23, 2014 at 10:29 pm
    Permalink

    Simple PR deception. We all know someone, perhaps ourselves, who have been shunned by family by the direction of the elders and organization as a whole. Many people could write a book about their experiences. But again, with public and government scrutiny, you would expect for this to be downplayed or downright rejected, no matter how false.

  • June 24, 2014 at 1:46 am
    Permalink

    I’m sorry , but Mr Leinonen didn’t Lie, The question was: “If a JW child leaves Will he be shunned?” And the response was NO. This is absolutly TRUE. If the question was : A BAPTISED Child… The response had been REALY different !!!!

    • June 24, 2014 at 2:33 am
      Permalink

      He may not have lied but he was certainly dishonest by not explaining the various ramifications for leaving depending on whether a young person is baptized or not.

  • June 24, 2014 at 2:18 am
    Permalink

    adding to Guille’s comment…and of course they are “free to leave”. That’s not a lie either. After all, nobody has a rope tied around them do they?…..

    • June 24, 2014 at 2:31 am
      Permalink

      Please do some research and inform yourself on what your own religion teaches before making such ridiculous comments.

      You don’t need to have a rope tied around you to prevent you from leaving. Having the threat of shunning for disassociation (which has been the policy since 1981) is sufficient to keep many Witnesses inside the religion against their will. You cannot claim that Witnesses are “free to leave” if they are punished through their families for doing so.

  • June 24, 2014 at 2:58 am
    Permalink

    There is no question that he lied because he knew exactly what the question was about. Even if the JW child isn’t baptized much of the time he is shunned anyway. If he wanted to evade the question on a technicality he is being dishonest also bc he knew EXACTLY what he was being asked. It is the same way the WT dances around the question on JW.ORG about their belief that ONLY Jehovah’s Witnesses will be saved? They say No. Then go into all kinds of other evasive ways of telling the truth.
    Anyone who has been around JW’s or baptized JW knows the answer to that and they will be shunned for almost anything. Like the Article on here a few weeks ago of the Bible Study who was shunned in Salem Massachusetts bc she came to the conclusion that it wasn’t for her or that it wasn’t the truth. They gave the BIG talk at the KH about bad associations and Shunning and she wasn’t baptized. Of course he was lying.

  • June 24, 2014 at 3:16 am
    Permalink

    Hi Cedars. I was trying to be funny. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

  • June 24, 2014 at 3:20 am
    Permalink

    I shouldn’t say “funny”. What I meant was that I was “mocking” the free to leave comment.

    • June 24, 2014 at 3:56 am
      Permalink

      Good, I’m glad! It is very hard to read sarcasm on such sensitive issues.

  • June 24, 2014 at 3:35 am
    Permalink

    FAQ on Jw.org says it all,look up do Jehovah’s witness Shun,says it all,but on saying that i met a jw in the street recently and she did not no i was DF but i mentioned it to her,well i might as well of had Satan tatoo on my forehead she cowed and went a way thing is it was funny for a moment but i thought what are they teaching people to act like this,and yes The jw shunn 100% or should i say taught to shun to the point of putting fear in to them it sickens me,yet all loving and peaceful and yet this…

  • June 24, 2014 at 3:39 am
    Permalink

    and Cedars, it isn’t my religion anymore because I have done my research.

  • June 24, 2014 at 3:46 am
    Permalink

    While I agree with you I think your asking the wrong question. Why not just ask…do Jehovahs Witnesses shun DISFELLOWSHIPPED people? There is no wiggle room in that question.

  • June 24, 2014 at 4:28 am
    Permalink

    After this, I will try and make my comments more clear so there’s no misunderstandings. After doing my research, I have nothing but contempt for the Society so never think I am supporting them. Every time I hear someone saying that Jehovah’s Witnesses are “free” to leave, I think to myself that it’s just a wormy way of getting out of answering the real question at hand and yes, nobody has a rope tied around them so technically they can reason in their minds that they aren’t lying.

  • June 24, 2014 at 5:29 am
    Permalink

    Gutless is how I would describe the Watchtowers and it’s representatives response to the shunning debate. Gutless. I attended a meeting a number of weeks ago. I left as soon as the had meeting finished. I hate small talk, too many question e.t.c.
    Sister (df’d) left at the same time. You know the one. The one who had her head down trying not to make eye contact as she left. The walk of shame. “Hello:-)”, “you can’t speak to me”, “who said so?”, “I’m df’d”, “I have my own brain & conscience l I don’t know what u’ve done love & they ain’t told me”. . .response? The biggest nicest smile ever:-). That I should be bullied and conscience stricken into not speaking to a “crushed reed?” **** you.

  • June 24, 2014 at 5:32 am
    Permalink

    I’ve been kind of associated with the J.W.s for many years.Frequent meeting,assembly & convention attendee.Soon after I started giving dissenting comments at their meetings the study conductors practically stopped allowing me to comment.Avoiding eye contact,saying time’s up,etc.Mild version of “shunning”?

  • June 24, 2014 at 5:33 am
    Permalink

    Conscience conscience conscience. That’s what it’s there for. Those who abuse conscience are against all that is holy. Couldn’t stand up for God if they had legs.

  • June 24, 2014 at 5:41 am
    Permalink

    Nobody answers to God for you. Without faith, so it says, you cannot please God. Get out of that Watchtower.

  • June 24, 2014 at 5:44 am
    Permalink

    The spirit is above the law.

  • June 24, 2014 at 5:59 am
    Permalink

    I find totally disgusting that this denomination treat people with cruelty by using loved ones as weapons.

    This is discrimination misusing scriptures to protect their own interpretations.

    Many people leave the org not because they are sinners but because do not agree with their ideas. Not following ideas and opinions is not a sin but shows respect for justice and truth.

    All people are the same and free to express their opinions.

    If critic is not acceptable it must be so for everybody not just for some.

    They judge and criticise no JWs but don’t accept any critic. This is a regime and bully like approach very far from real Christian behaviour.

    I hope that governments will become more aware of this injustice and will do something about it. I pray God that this happen very soon.

  • June 24, 2014 at 5:59 am
    Permalink

    All you have to do John is put them under oath. Consider this approach.

  • June 24, 2014 at 10:52 am
    Permalink

    Gary, well done for talking to that poor lady. Truly I tell you today, there is much rejoicing in Heaven when we follow our conscience and recognise the beautiful humanity in everyone else.

    Jesus shunned no one. He spoke to everyone.

    I bumped into a poor lady who had just been reinstated the other day. I couldn’t say anything to her but my heart went out to her.

    How I remember the walk of shame, Gary. But I am not ashamed any more. Rather, it is the WTBTS who should hang their heads in shame for their abuse of the name of Jesus, a person that I still retain a lot of respect for. He would be ashamed of them, and say, I never knew you.

    All those shiny bibles, all those magazines and they don’t have any understanding of what true love is. That is why they will fall.

    No one deserves to be shunned by their families for simply no longer believing in a religion.

    Peace be with you

    Excelsior!

  • June 24, 2014 at 1:10 pm
    Permalink

    Black women have some smiles:-)
    it lit the bloody street:-). My privilege:-)

  • June 24, 2014 at 1:15 pm
    Permalink

    It might sound a little odd this oath thing. However whether it’s from a Christian or not refusing to answer to a compulsive oath the christian deny’s their faith. Wouldn’t it be lovely to interview the GB?

  • June 24, 2014 at 2:21 pm
    Permalink

    No one is free to just leave with out being some how labeled or shunned. Any one saying otherwise is a liar. And according to the bible, lying is wrong, so just more proof they are not God’s ‘chosen people’.

  • June 24, 2014 at 3:30 pm
    Permalink

    This entire claim boils down to semantics. The term “shun” isn’t used by the Watchtower, therefore they don’t do it. Right? Wrong!

    Here is the definition of shun:
    persistently avoid, ignore, or reject (someone or something) through antipathy or caution.
    synonyms: avoid, evade, eschew, steer clear of, shy away from, fight shy of, keep one’s distance from, give a wide berth to, have nothing to do with

    How is that not the same as disfellowshipping?

    No matter the supposed reason, Jehovah’s Witnesses ABSOLUTELY shun former members.

    Why is this even a debate for them?

  • June 24, 2014 at 4:42 pm
    Permalink

    I remember back when there was a continual conversation regarding whether it was appropriate for a Jehovah’s Witness to lie in certain scenarios. It seems the situation always involved witnesses under ban.

    The general feeling was that JWs should not lie, unless the person demanding truthfulness from the JW was not deserving of such. Demands as to where witnesses were meeting or how operations worked would be met with lies given in a clear conscience.

    It’s the last part that stuck with me… ‘how operations worked.’ Witnesses feel in a constant state of persecution (in their own minds). So anyone criticizing their operations would be viewed as ones not deserving of “truth.”

    That is exactly what I think of when I see issues like this.

  • June 24, 2014 at 5:44 pm
    Permalink

    @ jeni

    The following quote is taken from the September 15, 1981 Watchtower magazine article entitled “Disfellowshipping–How To View It” on page 23, paragraph 12:

    “. . . ‘disfellowshiping’ is what Jehovah’s Witnesses appropriately call the expelling and subsequent shunning of such an unrepentant wrongdoer.”

    This was brought to my attention a while ago. Although they don’t use the term “shun” and avoid using it most of the time, they definitely recognize the shunning aspect of the disfellowshipping arrangement as acknowledged above.

    Just wanted to share this with you and everyone else in all due respect. :D

    • June 25, 2014 at 9:46 am
      Permalink

      Very interesting.

      I can’t recall every seeing the word “shun” in Watchtower’s writing before. It’s an old article, so they could always claim “new light.” But, I think this quote should be shared with the person who conducted this interview and anyone else claiming the shunning policy is a lie.

  • June 25, 2014 at 3:06 am
    Permalink

    It does seem that old habits do die hard for these witnesses as site after site that I go on that are set up by Jehovah’s Witnesses who are in disagreement with some of the Watchtower’s interpretations of things but more or less avocate the doctrines of Jehovah’s witnesses, i get kicked of, or asked to leave simply because I dare to suggest that the Bible in itself may not be the word of God, among other things.

    For some of these ones it is very hard to leave the Jewish system behind them and start afresh.

  • June 25, 2014 at 3:51 am
    Permalink

    Is Veikko Leinonen an “OTHER SHEEP” or an “ANOINTED”?

    If he is an “OTHER SHEEP”, I will not comment on what he said as I cannot argue with “OTHER SHEEP”!

    If he is a “SHEEP = Anointed”, I have some recomendation; Let him visit a clinician for evaluation of his mental health as the WTS witnesses that “A number of factors—including past religious beliefs or even mental or emotional imbalance—might cause some to assume mistakenly that they have the heavenly calling.” (*** w11 8/15 p. 22 Questions From Readers ***)

  • June 25, 2014 at 6:20 am
    Permalink

    I have been disfellowshipped and re-instated and now I have faded. Re-instated to regain my family. I might as well not have bothered as far as the so called brothers and sisters were concerned because they were just cold toward me. So they buried the hatchet but marked the spot. I was never included in anything (not that I wanted to be just pointing it out). This coldness has allowed me to withdraw while still being classed as a JW. So I get to keep the family, without the indoctrination. However recently I was having a rant about the “two witness rule” to my mother. Now my mum is a really good mum. We are very very close. But she said “if you carry on like this I will have to stop talking to you, you sound like an apostate” !!!!!! It hurt. But I know she is brainwashed. I love her. She loves me. But like Cedars dad she would do it. It stinks. The end.

  • June 25, 2014 at 6:30 am
    Permalink

    JW that are not as regular in field service are marked and shunned, to be shunned is to ignore and this happens because some are not as active as others, doesn’t matter if they are DF.

    But an unknown child abuser can go door to door regulary and be deemed as ok and not shunned, he/she can attend all meetings and not shunned because he/she is regular.

    go figure, it’s easy really, ITS A CULT

  • June 25, 2014 at 9:16 am
    Permalink

    I always heard, “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it’s probably a duck.” This is applied to when they circumvent the shunning issue with such lies and evasions of the truth.

    Even if the person is a sinner or just left because of concience, NO ONE should be shunned by their family and friends. Yes, I can understand not wanting a dissenter or repeated sinner labeled as a witness in their organization, but friends and family should NOT be used as weapons under any circumstances. That’s just mind control tactics of a mind control cult, just as sinfully evil. I use to have arguments with my ex-wife; if anything a sinner would need extra care and guidance, not the silient treatment. As a matter of fact, in the gospels didn’t Jesus say it is not the healthy that need a doctor, but the sick? I’m a sinner (sometimes really bad) just like everyone else in this world; i’m just human, so are the witnesses. They should understand this, but the witnesses under the mind control of psychopathic leaders are instructed not be humane. That’s the ‘fruit’ of their tree (organization), lies and distruction of families.

  • June 25, 2014 at 9:18 am
    Permalink

    I have found talking with JWs in Dover, England about shunning is often at variance with the official line. No doubt this topic will surface once again at the international assembly in London this August.

  • June 25, 2014 at 9:42 am
    Permalink

    Unfortunately, the lies like this interview spewed forth from the watchtower leaders and representatives further reinforce the words of Mahatma Ghandi. He said, “If it weren’t for Christians, I’d be a Christian.” He also said this, “The need of the moment is not one religion, but mutual respect and tolerance of the devotees of the different religions.”

  • June 25, 2014 at 12:04 pm
    Permalink

    Just as a sidenote, they also printed in 1996 that disfellowshipping = excommunication, despite of the fact that 99.999% of the R&F witnesses would argue that DF’ing is not excommunication (when faced with reasoning why excommunication is bad/wrong): “However, many people may be surprised to learn that among Jehovah’s Witnesses, disfellowshipping (the equivalent of excommunication) is taken seriously.” – Awake!, 9/8/1996, p. 26

  • June 25, 2014 at 12:05 pm
    Permalink

    This was for Jeni. yhe comments jump to the end of the thread for some reason.

  • June 25, 2014 at 12:07 pm
    Permalink

    @ Jeni

    I was surprised when I saw it for the first time myself. It is an old article indeed, but the disfellowshipping arrangement is still practiced the same way it was back in 1981. So-called unrepentant ones who are expelled from the congregation are still shunned. They use the term “unrepentant wrongdoers” to justify their being expelled from the congregation and the subsequent social isolation that follows. I’ve heard many stories of individuals who appeared before a Judicial Committee and were truly repentant and were still disfellowshipped. I even read in one story that an elder stated the following: “It’s not about whether you’re repentant; it’s about whether you’re repentant enough.” This brings to mind a question I believe should be included in the survey:

    @ Cedars

    Were you ever disfellowshipped despite being genuinely repentant?

  • June 25, 2014 at 1:09 pm
    Permalink

    Very interesting that witnesses expect tolerance from others especially when calling on their homes at inopportune times and with regards to children not participating in holidays at school and medical treatments and for so many other man made pharisaical rules that govern their lives. However, they are completely intolerant of others and will shun their own family if there is any sign of disloyalty to the “organization”. I guess that Brooklyn trumps everything and everyone.

Comments are closed.