Update on my JC situation

by drew sagan 62 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  OnTheWayOut

  ...When someone wanted to take notes, we simply told them that they couldn't.
  
  ......We would take control and never yield control to the accused one. If we started to ask questions and we got no cooperation that we felt was reasonable, we'd dismiss them, have a discussion and no doubt disfellowship the person based upon whatever info we knew we had. Having the individual there or not---was really not that important---especially if we believed they were guilty.

  Once again I suggest you check out my thread and read the real life statement of Seeker who served on appeals. IT DIDN'T MATTER EVEN IF THE PERSONS WERE NOT VIEWED AS GUILTY BY THE APPEALS COM. THE SOCIETY DIDN'T CARE!!!

  I usually don't respond to threads like this, but I will just this once.

  When I was an elder, every single time a JC met that I was involved with, we actually tried to do what we were supposed to do.
  We tried to HELP the person to come to repentence and a good relationship with Jehovah.

  While it's true that we were captives of the concept that WTS was God's representative, and therefore, we were really helping
  the organization get people back in line, I am totally disgusted with the thought of one man that all these men would do the same
  as he did- ignore a person's requests for note-taking and dismiss a frustrated person before he can form his thoughts, then just
  go ahead and disfellowship him.

  "Having the individual there or not---was really not that important---especially if we believed they were guilty." Read your flock book
  again. You aren't supposed to just determine guilt or innocense. You are supposed to get them back in line with the Almighty.
  That way they can stay in the book selling organization and continue to recruit, instead of leaving.

  I will grant that in many cases, the appeals committee doesn't overturn the case because of what it would look like to those
  viewing the process, but it does happen sometimes.

  Drew, I am sorry to contribute to the thread derailment. I will not respond on this thread to anymore of this yapping.
• 

  Mary

  Hey Drew, I found a couple of quotes that might help you out:

  *** w79 1/1 p. 30 Questions from Readers ***

  Questions from Readers

  Is it true that for religious reasons Jehovah’s Witnesses may not become members of the YMCA (Young Men’s Christian Association)?

  Yes, that is so. We have long recognized that the YMCA, though not being a church as such, is definitely aligned with the religious organizations of Christendom in efforts to promote interfaith. In September 1885 the WatchTower took this position:

  "Alas for the Bible-rearing practiced in the Y. M. C. Associations! They are completely under the control of the sectarians, by whom they are supported. Though professedly non-sectarian, professedly controlled by no creed but the Biblecreed-bound than oth, they are more ers, since they are bound by allthepopularcreeds."—P. 6.

  Many persons think of the "Y" simply as a social organization that offers various services, such as a swimming pool, facilities for athletic training and a place for clubs to meet. Commendable as some of these provisions may be, it is important to bear in mind that the YMCA was founded with a distinctly religious basis.

  In joining the YMCA as a member a person accepts or endorses the general objectives and principles of the organization. He is not simply paying for something he receives, such as when buying things being sold to the public at a store. (Compare 1 Corinthians 8:10; 10:25.) Nor is his membership merely an entry pass, as when a person buys a theater ticket. Membership means that one has become an integral part of this organization founded with definite religious objectives, including the promotion of interfaith. Hence, for one of Jehovah’s Witnesses to become a member of such a so-called "Christian" association would amount to apostasy.

  Some individuals have on occasion not become members but have paid a onetime admission fee, viewing this as simply paying for a commercial service available. Even in this regard it is wise to consider whether this course will adversely affect the consciences of others.

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  OK, so in this 1979 article, they're saying that since 1885, they've recognized the YMCA as a big no-no for 'true Christians' and that to even go swimming in the pool at the Y, is pandamount to "apostasy", right? So then WHY on earth did the Organization allow brothers and sisters to get baptized at the YMCA pool as noted below in the 1957 Watchtower:

  *** w 57 8/1 p. 478 Part 3: Rounding the World with the Vice-President

  They appreciated the point of one’s demonstrating unbreakable faithfulness within Jehovah’s favored organization. Inexorably, as with all assemblies, the final day of the Manila assembly arrived. A crowded day it was. Baptism was scheduled as the first thing in the morning. The questions directed to the candidates for baptism to determine their worthiness for it were asked in as many dialects as were spoken by the candidates, besides in English—in Tagalog, Ilocano, Cebu-Visayan, Hiligaynon-Visayan, Bicolano, Samareno, Pangasinan, Pampango, Zambel and Ibanag. In spite of the difference of language all were alike in being dedicated to the same God Jehovah and in understanding his kingdom truth. Accordingly, 279 were favored with baptism in the YMCA swimming pool, not far from the Rizal Stadium, where 6,572 had heard them answer the decisive questions affirmatively.

  If the Society had felt that theYMCA was so evil that an R&F Witness could not even use the swimming pool, then why can they use it for baptism??!! Wouldn't that mean that THEY are guilty of (gasp! 'apostasy'??!!

  I would most definitely ask your Kangaroo Court this question. I'm guessing these morons have absolutely no idea that this is mentioned in their own literature.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Drew,

  I should add that the typical JW is fairly ignorant of logical analysis. Accordingly it is not uncommon to find many serious flaws in testimony and conclusions upon analysis. By insisting on giving yourself time to respond in writing you are preserving yourself an opportunity to analyze and refute testimony. It is rare that testimony is so rock-solid that it cannot be mitigated, if not refuted.

  By the way, part of your questioning regarding testimony should be toward the elders themselves. That is, beside any questions you may or may not ask of a witness, you should also ask the attending elders what they understand the testimony to be. That is, precisely what of the testimony do they think you have need of defending, or explaining? And, by the way, be careful to distinguish between assertions that you need to “explain yourself” versus “you need to defend yourself.” If testimony does not require a defense then you have no obligation to explain anything whatsoever. Put the elders on record (the one you are keeping) by asking them to specify what they see you need to defend against.

  It is true that hindsight is twenty-twenty. Use this to your advantage by allowing yourself time to look back at an initial judicial hearing in order to better respond, if you need to respond at all. I say the latter because a few decades ago I was the object of a judicial hearing, and upon hearing the testimony against me person I got up and expressed, “Call me back when you have something I need to answer for.” That was the last I heard of it. The accusation was not only false, it was also outside purview of the Watchtower’s then judicial policy. My experience is, by no means, exceptional.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  Shawn10538

  I tried to take notes once but they wouldn't allow me to. I insisted and they ended up throwing me out. When I refused to go they picked up the phone to call the police! Dude, DON'T GO TO THAT MEETING. When you have dealings with ignorant people, you can really get hurt. I implore you not to go. Only ill can be reaped from such an encounter. You are giving them your head to put on a chopping block, and believe me, they will take a whack or two for free if you let them. I am interested in the note taking thing though. I'll give you 2 to 1 odds that they do not allow note taking.
• 

  minimus

  OTWO, I'm not saying that was right. The whole judicial process is wrong. All I'm saying is that I have had similar situations and we were of the mind that they were there for the meeting. If they gave us a hard time (in our minds) it would point to their being unrepentant. Remember, I don't condone these actions but I am saying the my experience on numerous JCs was that if we got a hint of someone trying to write everything down, having to review answers before they made them, etc.----we just didn't put up with persons trying to play games with us.

  And I still think playing this game does nothing for the accused but buy time. And I know of a man that took almost a year before he got df'd. He stalled them, threw curveballs at them, told him his wife was too ill to be present----you name it, he used every delay trick in the book. Last year he was d'fd. (If the elders don't know exactly what to do in these circumstances, Legal will get involved with the Service Dept and the JC will be instructed as to the correct way to deal.)

  Another thing, do you believe that Ray Franz had your type of elders on his JC? The truth was it was the evil Society that did the dastardly deed and df'd him unfairly---even by their own rules. As I've said before, I know COs that have TOLD the JC what the outcome was to be. It was a done deal. No trying to reach their hearts to repentance. (Perhaps I'm so strong on this point because I've seen many times firsthand what the elders have done thru the Society).
• 

  Open mind

  Hey folks, the clock is ticking. If Drew & Amber's Kangaroo Court is somewhere between 7pm-8pm EST, then time is important here.

  Can someone please blow the "roll over and play totally repentant sheep" approach out of the water?

  Marvin's approach, IMHO, will just pi$$ off the JC and perhaps create some grist for the appeal mill, but get them DFed by the first JC.

  They've got the "goods" on you. They are looking for 100% repentance. If you want to stay in, tell them what they want to hear. If not, concede almost everything, so you sound "reasonable" to your in-laws, but not repentant enough to the JC. And make sure you do a sound-check with your recorder beforehand.

  Open Mind
• 

  Open mind

  I said: They are looking for 100% repentance.

  That is, if you're lucky. I concur with the red dot that if they've already decided to give you a ride on the Disfellow-ship, then, in your own words, "you're toast".

  Sound check.
• 

  minimus

  Gee. Marvin will hate hearing that!
• 

  stevenyc

  The YMCA plus the spiritual doubts (607 etc) expressed to an elder on this committee probably means the exit.
  
  If you want to show your in-laws how much BS is involved with a JC, then don't write it down, only tape the event. Be 110% repentant. Then you'll have your evidence.
  
  steve
• 

  Frank75

  While it's true that we were captives of the concept that WTS was God's representative, and therefore, we were really helping
  the organization get people back in line, I am totally disgusted with the thought of one man that all these men would do the same
  as he did- ignore a person's requests for note-taking and dismiss a frustrated person before he can form his thoughts, then just
  go ahead and disfellowship him.

  OTWO:

  There is really no need to take this so personally my friend. I do not believe the former elder you efer to is saying that always happens, buit rather is likely to.

  We are all aware of good men who are in the roll of elder. Before I left I could tell you who some of them were. Ones who stuck by their guns in helping people who had transgressed, tried to follow the bible and a rational interpretation of WT directives. I knew elders who were proud that they had sat on 12 committees and DF'd all but one, conversely I knew ones that DF'd 1 out of 12 and cried and laid awake at night over the 1!

  In one of the larger districts in North America for dubs being the GTA (Greater Toronto Area) and after being a witness in several parts of that area for almost 40 years I can assure you that the caring and merciful shepherd was a rarity, and not a norm. Yes there were some who cared, but there was no reward for caring in the long run and some who started that way eventually went with the flow or are simply trounced by the wicked ones who gang up to remove him as an obstacle to their own blood lust. Shoot first and ask questions later.

  It is hard to believe that things can be so rotten, but the sad truth is that the WT elder arrangement is a "UNTRAINED" power position with little or no scrutiny. This allows the corrupting influence of absolute power to play out with penitent victims behind closed doors. It is a crooked arrangement and those who have created know it is a license for abuse.

  What is there about the history of justice that tells you that the JW JC is not a recipe for witch hunt trials and inquisition?

  What you need to ask yourself instead of why wouldn't elders let an accused person take notes, is why are not such rights clearly outlined to all of JW's before they get in trouble? Or more importantly, why are not JC recorded so as to keep everyone honest?

  Why are not the accused who must face 3 men, schooled in the procedural world of JW does & don'ts of excommunication, allowed a learned advocate to help them defend/present their case?

  I think you know the answers.

  Tell us what your experience is with appeals. Out of 100 JC who df'd and were appealed, how many would you know for sure got overturned? I would say less than 1 in 500 - 1000 if that! In the years I actually paid attention to such matters I can recall only 1 appeal committee helping to overrule a decision. It took almost 6 hours until the original committee could be convinced to change their mind. Afterwards the chairman of the appeal committee announced he was moving to another province unexpectedly.

  Frank75