Say You're a Bethelite & Monitoring JWD - How Would You Feel About THESE?? (page 16)

grey matters

After reading this thread and doing some reflection, I have come to the conclusion that this organization works best for those who can selectively ignore counsel and quietly (very quietly) hope that doctrine and procedures will change. I just couldn't do that. Trying to do that and still attend meetings where the commands shouted from the platform were "be wholesouled", "obey", and "do not question Jehovah's channel of communication" created a huge incongruence that I personally could not deal with. So I left.

plmkrzy

grey matters: and "do not question Jehovah's channel of communication" created a huge incongruence that I personally could not deal with. So I left.

Exactly. My feelings about that were rather on the hostile side lol!Don't tell me who I can can't talk too!

Shooting Star

Amazing thread...perhaps the best ever. What a joy to hear from elders, just to confirm that they are here, not swallowing the whole mess being presented to them. I am loving this...

Big Tex

Howdy Doubting Bro and JW Freak.

Back in the 80's when I was struggling with whether to leave or not, I bombarded my elders with questions (not just child abuse, although that was foremost on my mind being a survivor myself), and rarely were they ever able to answer. Not once did I receive a reasoned reply similar to yours. I knew the policy was to call Brooklyn first. I remember when the 1989 BOE letter came out and instructed elders to call (I was shown the letter by my friend). What intrigued and frustrated me though was the insistence on meeting attendance and service irregardless. My friend felt much as you two, but he still pushed me to get back to meetings and out in service. He felt that if I didn't, I would be killed by Jehovah at Armageddon. That, to me, felt like extortion and God was threatening me. It also flew in the face of everything the Bible said about God. Interestingly, the more I dug, the more questions I had (and this was before the Internet!). I was told then, and believed it for many years, that I was the only one who saw a problem with the child abuse policy.

I've tried to understand the reason for the crazy abuse policy. It's a little better now because at least they've instructed elders to not threaten abuse members with judicial action if they go to the police. Not saying that everyone listens to that nugget of common sense.As a matter of fact, if faced with such an issue, the first thing in my opinion is to instruct the person TO go to the police. That's another weakness of the current policy because it just says to tell the person they have that option. I honestly think that the people who originally wrote this policy have never had kids and probably don't even like kids. So, they automatically think that kids are making this stuff up when the reality is the exact opposite. I really believe if the lawyers had their way on this one, there would be automatic reporting (even in a nonreporting state). To me, that lessons the org's liability. I think its the GB that is blocking that for some reason.

One thing I've never understood is why elders would want to get involved in something like determining guilt or innocence in child abuse. If I were an elder, that would be the last thing I'd want to do. A much more reasonable policy would be hands off, let the police handle it and after the accused has had his day in court then decide what you're going to do with him judicially.

To my way of thinking, instructing the elders to report only when required by law is monstrously wrong. It is the epitome of following the letter of the law, versus the spirit and harkens more to the Pharisees' rules and regulations than Jesus. Were I still going today, I'd want to ask an elder if Jesus or the apostles had knowledge of a child being assaulted, and yet did nothing to stop it only because Roman law did not require them to. Then look at the tremendous gulf between that scenario and the reality of today.

If faced with this issue, I would more than likely be disfellowshiped. Because I would 1) tell the parents that the case will be reported and if they don't do it I will, and 2) out the person publically in front of the congregation so parents could keep their kids away.

Looking back it's a wonder I didn't get DF'd considering how loud and long I squawked. But eventually I was told to "shut up" or else I'd be disfelowshipped. Not because I was doing anything wrong, but because I was asking awkward questions.

You're a good man. There are times when men of good conscience must step up and do what is right rather than what is easy. On behalf of child I was 40 years ago (hence my avatar) -- thank you.

sf

****AWESOME THREAD****

The debates with ThirdWitness also helped me to see the folly of the Societys stance on things

Ha! That was a given.

{{{{{ WELCOME TO THE LURKERS, SEEKERS and NEW MEMBERS }}}}}

sKally

willyloman

I have been sitting here reading and catching up on this fascinating thread. So many true things have been posted here that I keep nodding my head in agreement. It would take too long to list every post that touched on one of my own experiences as a dub elder for three decades, but here's one:

Alan F said he had it on good authority that Brooklyn views with skepticism the 8,000 professed annointed who are counted at each Memorial. He's right.

Not long ago a CO told me the Society has its own estimate and it is a far smaller number, well under 2,000. I asked him when they were going to publish something about that and "call" the bogus partakers on it and he said they'd come to the conclusion that it would do more harm than good to expose people who were well intentioned but misguided. He said many of these people were acting on emotion or were still harboring teachings they brought with them from Christendom and that Jehovah would sort it all out at the end. To me, this raised more questions than it answered. His explanation was just one of many things that led to more serious doubts about the organization and its inconsistent teachings.

sir82

Not long ago a CO told me privately that the Society has its own estimate and it is a far smaller number, well under 2,000.

I heard the "less than 2000" estimate as well...about 10 years ago!

Statistically speaking, out of a group of 50,000 or so persons of various ages who professed to be "anointed" at the magical cut-off date of 1935, no more than a few hundred - tops - can be alive now, actuarially speaking. And those that are alive are in their 90's or 100's - hardly capable of leading an organization or producing "spiritual food".

The last 5 or 6 GB appointments have been persons bornafter 1935 - certainly not baptized before then, giving further evidence that the number of "genuine anointed" is alrmingly (from their viewpoint) small.

I think the "less than 2000" number is basically just a number pulled out of thin air (or elsewhwere). It's a way of giving the message "yeah, most of the partakers are nuttier than a fruitcake, but there's still a goodly number of 'true anointed ones' left." If the actual number of those who the Society considers "anointed" were well-known, it would likely cause a lot more questions - "Say, aren't there supposed to be a bunch of them around when Armageddon begins?"

If you get a chance, and want to bend someone's brain the next time they make a point like this, ask the following:

"So, there are about 8000 or so partakers, but only 2000 {or whatever number} are 'genuine anointed' - right? It sounds like the Society has some means of determining who is 'genuinely anointed' vs. 'not-so-genuinely anointed' other than Memorial partaking. How have they determined those 2000 'genuine ones', then, if it is by some other means than partaking? And if that method is so accurate, why not use it instead of reporting the numer of 'partakers' in the Yearbook each year?"

LongHairGal

Sir 82:

This topic of knowing who is "Anointed" falls in the unknowable category like the GB and IF they are really chosen by Jehovah. If somebody claims to be anointed, who can dispute it?? There is no "test" to determine if it is true or not.

To me, this all falls in the roll your eyeballs category because who can know whether somebody's claim is genuine or not. I always felt these people were seriously deluded and it was presumptuousness to claim such a thing. I think there is much creature worship among the JWs and some of these people like the attention.

sir82

Longhairgal:

I know that - the idea is to point it out to a smug JW who thinks he has some sort of "inside scoop".

I agree with your post.

Dismembered

I think with so many of these active elders posting, that history is being made. No doubt we look foward to more.

Dismembered

Say You're a Bethelite & Monitoring JWD - How Would You Feel About THESE??

Share this