URGENT - UK Elders (or elders wives) (page 2)

core

UK Civil & Church Weddings (as in a Kingdom Hall) are required by law to be open to any any every person who wishes to be present as they may wish to answer the question "if any man knows of any lawful impediment to this marriage let him now speak..."
The registrar (probably the brother not doing talk, but likely a local brother who is registered as the civil registrar for the KH) has to ensure that this is the case as otherwise post the wedding an application to overturn the ceremony can be made to the Registrat General, if the ceremony was behind closed doors.
The published banns of marriage (posted at the local registry office) advice the public of the date and time of the ceremony which has to allow for objections from any person.
As ever it seems that a pompous prat of an elder is playing God again with "secret letters" which only they are privy to. He should be pointed in the direction of the Statute law of England which tends to overide his self displayed importance.

AlphaOmega

A more recent letter may have made a change to those arrangements, so I will keep looking for a letter dated 2000 or after.

The letter posted is one included in the 2001 Body of Elders Index. It must have been valid then, but that was years ago and we all know how quickly things change...

http://i5.tinypic.com/30a3kh0.jpg

alt

S EIGHT

Hi, thanks for all the responses so far.

Just to clarify as my initial post may have been misleading.

The elder concerned is dictating as to who can attend the wedding reception not the service at the KH.

The point he is making is that as he is giving the talk he is responsible for such things and has an overiding decision on who can be invited to the evening. He claims this is in accordance with a recent letter to the body giving updated instructions in regard to weddings.

I don't believe a word of it and we need a copy of this recent letter as proof as this involves very close members of the brides family and no way should they be shut out and shunned in this way just for being inactive.

Your continued help is much appreciated.

Thanks.

S8

LittleToe

He's talking a load of b*ll*x!

I recall that letter and the index well, as I was Congregation Secretary until I DAed at the start of 2002. Any new letters are only likely to make more explicit the law on such matters, which includes the doors being open even to the public for a wedding ceremony. Sure, he's responsible in part for that, especially if it is to take place in a Kingdom Hall.

As for the reception, its a private function, not in the Hall premises. It is the Bride and especially the Groom (Head of the new household, and all that) who have ultimate responsibility for what occurs there and who is invited. They don't even need to invite the speaker if they don't want to. Its entirely their choice and at their discretion, with "Elder Body" sanction not required.

However I have commonly heard of DFed relatives not being invited to receptions ("not even eating with such a one"), and folks having "privileges" removed if they attend the wedding of a DFed person or attend a wedding in a church. These are more extreme example of behaviour, though. Unfortunately they are more common than they ought to be, but are still extreme and not universaly applied. I've never heard of it applying to inactive ones, only to the DFed and DAed.

It sounds like the guy who has been invited to give the talk is a real jerk, with an over-inflated sense of his own importance. Just give the talk, lead the vows and STFU, already! Its a stressful enough day without all that pulaver!

LT, of the "p*ssed off at the stupidity, on what should be one of the happiest days of a couple's life" class

Gill

Though this does not pertain to 'Weddings' I believe that their is new or newish instruction on association with 'inactive ones' and this may be what the Elder giving the talk may be refering to.

We had a VERY awkward evening with JW relatives the other evening which has all of my immeadiate family feeling very despoiled at having even been in the presence of these very stupid people. Out of resepect for my parents (they asked my other relatives first if they minded being in the same house as us evil inactives! ), they agreed to come to the gathering.

There is somewhere a thread in relation to not having association with inactives and this may lead you to the source of this Elders 'concerns' of having 'inactives' present at a reception

BluesBrother

Get somebody else to conduct it ! It seems that this guy is missapplying the "counsel" on good associations

but will not show my family member the actual letter, as they claim it is confidential.

That is B/S as well...

BluesBrother

Get somebody else to conduct it ! It seems that this guy is missapplying the "counsel" on good associations

but will not show my family member the actual letter, as they claim it is confidential.

That is B/S as well...

S EIGHT

The sad thing about this, is that all involved including the elder and the inactive ones are part of the same family.

Thanks for all your posts. Hopefully someone will have to hand the most recent letter on this subject. It seemS that it will be post 2002.

Thanks.

S8

geevee

While showing all due respect for his "authority" cant you ask to see the instruction to be certain? It sounds like he is overstepping things by making himself in charge of the reception. I formulated and outline from WT articles and BOE letters, that they probably still use locally, that specifically put the full responsiblilty on the Groom.
I would be wanting to see the letter.

vitty

I remember a talk given by our PO that said even if some are inactive they are still part of the congregation. Im sorry I dont know which KM it was from but it was in the last 5 years definitely

URGENT - UK Elders (or elders wives)

Share this