Writing private letters to the Society.

by spectromize 77 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  RedhorseWoman

  Friend,

  My previous response to you mainly addressed your claim that it was "preposterous" for the Society to send copies to the local congregation due to the volume of mail. I simply stated that if the volume of correspondence was THAT great, it would be more sensible to simply copy and forward rather than personally respond. You never really addressed this, but in actuality the point is basically moot.

  My main concern is that the Society is forwarding personal correspondence without the knowledge or consent of the questioner. If any other organization did this on a regular basis, there would be a major outcry.

  You also say that it makes perfect sense to forward the letters if there is a "perceived threat"...i.e. a possible pending lawsuit. I still ask why the original questioner is not notified and it is considered unnecessary to obtain consent for forwarding personal correspondence in this manner.
• 

  Friend

  RedhorseWoman

  I still ask why the original questioner is not notified and it is considered unnecessary to obtain consent for forwarding personal correspondence in this manner.

  If this response does not answer your question then please rephrase your question. I want to answer you, but am unsure about what you see as the problem.

  My perception of your concern is has to do with confidentiality. That is, you think that a personal letter sent to the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society should not be revealed to anyone outside the walls of Bethel. You perceive the walls of Bethel as the extent of the WBTS and its representatives charged with responding to such letters. Therefore you feel that copying that letter to local elders breaches that confidentiality. If I am correct in that assessment of your concern then there is a misconception at work on your part. Let me explain.

  You send your letter to the WBTS. My guess is that you understand that within the confines of Bethel that one or more persons will read your letter and decide what to do with it. If you found that as many as ten (10) various persons within the confines of Bethel read your letter and were instrumental in determining a response then you would probably understand that and have not problem with it.

  Now, if you agree so far, just think about what we have just said. We have said that several different persons would read and help determine how to respond to your letter. Now let me ask you a question, what did all those persons have in common? Was their physical location the important factor? No. For all you know the Society consulted some distant person at some other branch that is also charged with helping to respond to requests such as yours. The key factor is that they are all appointed by the Society to read letters such as that and help respond depending on the need. What many fail to realize about this issue we are discussing is that, in the Society’s eyes local elders are also entrusted representatives to be used for similar purposes if necessary. In that case those asked locally to help determine how to respond are just another of in the ranks of those different persons asked to help. As long as none of those asked to help (including local elders) talks about your personal request with someone outside a Society appointee then confidentiality remains intact. Bethel elders and local elders are all elders to the Society.

  The original correspondent is not notified about how many elders internal to Bethel are involved in responding to them any more so how many local elders are involved in responding to them. In the Society’s eyes they all are appointees of the Society and available for helping in such situations. Do you expect that the Society should inform you of how many Bethel elders were requested to read your letter (and who they are) toward determining a response? If not, then why would you expect the Society to reveal whether they requested local elders to do the same? Again, they are all Society appointees.

  If that does not adequately answer your question then please explain specifically what is the area of concern.

  Friend
• 

  RedhorseWoman

  Friend,

  While your logic is correct, and no one should be foolish enough to presume that only one person would be privy to the matter, my concern lies in the fact that several people have been shocked to receive a personal visit from the congregation elders in response to a letter they had written confidentially to the Society.

  If you write a letter to any other corporation or perhaps to a government agency, you would expect to be notified if the initial agency was forwarding it to a local branch for attention.

  The posts I have seen from several people here expressed their dismay at receiving no reply from the Society itself, but rather being visited by the local elders, which was a situation with which they did not feel comfortable to begin with.

  The issue has to do with respect for an individual's rights and feelings. If someone felt comfortable enough with their local elders, they would have addressed the issue directly to them rather than seeking help through Bethel.

  For the Society to then turn around and, without notification, pass the information on to the local elders is, in my opinion, unconscionable.
• 

  Friend

  RedhorseWoman

  While your logic is correct, and no one should be foolish enough to presume that only one person would be privy to the matter, my concern lies in the fact that several people have been shocked to receive a personal visit from the congregation elders in response to a letter they had written confidentially to the Society.

  That is the part you are not dealing with. Persons responsible by the Society to respond to requests are appointed elders. Local elders are appointees of the Society just like those elders in Brooklyn, Patterson or whatever branch you are in. In fact, in some smaller branches you might be surprised that a local elder is opening and responding to your letter from the branch office.

  Let me ask a question. Would those same persons be "shocked" if an elder from Patterson traveled to make the same visit themselves? Is it the face-to-face visit that concern you or the fact that the Society utilizes all its appointed elders?

  If you write a letter to any other corporation or perhaps to a government agency, you would expect to be notified if the initial agency was forwarding it to a local branch for attention.

  I don’t think that is true. If you write a letter to the United Stated Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) with some request and they felt that they needed to first meet with you face-to-face then they would send a local field officer to do that. In so doing the FBI is still using an agent, just a local one.

  The same can be said of probably most corporations large enough to have offices in your locale. I mean, why have an employee travel hundreds or thousands of miles when a local employee can do the same thing for them and you? In that case the notification would be made at the point of contact. large retail corporations do this all the time. Insurance companies do the same thing. They have a local agent make the call or visit.

  The posts I have seen from several people here expressed their dismay at receiving no reply from the Society itself, but rather being visited by the local elders, which was a situation with which they did not feel comfortable to begin with.

  If being visited by local elders is unwanted then all they need do is express that sentiment, either in the initial letter or upon receiving the visit. At some point people should be willing to express themselves. No one can read people’s minds. All the Society is doing is using appointed elders for what they feel they are competent enough for. They do the same with elders closer to Bethel or at Bethel. Again, to the Society they are all appointed elders.

  The issue has to do with respect for an individual's rights and feelings. If someone felt comfortable enough with their local elders, they would have addressed the issue directly to them rather than seeking help through Bethel. [Emphasis added]

  I don’t know of any "rights" being infringed upon in this situation. Can you explain that? What "right" do you have in mind. Please be specific.

  As for feeling comfortable enough with local elders, you presume that elders at Bethel can read minds. Unless the individual expressed that up front then the Society does not assume such unless expressions make that obvious without it being stated explicitly. If the problem has to do with your own congregation elders then sometimes the Society may use elders living nearby but not in your congregation. But, again, at some point persons must be willing to express themselves.

  I really do not see what is so unconscionable about that process, it is a quite natural process to me.

  Friend

  Edited by - Friend on 6 June 2000 20:49:47
• 

  RedhorseWoman

  In any case where an inquiry is being forwarded to a local agency for attention (at least from my own experience), a form letter was sent notifying the questioner that the inquiry was being handled in that manner.

  The Society does not inform anyone, it just assumes that it has the right to deal with the matter as it sees fit without feeling the necessity to inform anyone.

  Would it be so difficult to send a form letter informing the questioner of the intent to forward their letter back to the local congregation? It would certainly ease people's minds to know what might be coming up.

  I can see that your feelings are simply that this is the way they do it....get used to it.

  My point is that as a "Mother" they should show a little more consideration for their children.
• 

  Friend

  RedhorseWoman

  You said:
  

  The Society does not inform anyone, it just assumes that it has the right to deal with the matter as it sees fit without feeling the necessity to inform anyone.

  Then this question should sum it up: If you didn’t want the Society deal with things as it saw fit then why would you relay your concerns to it in the first place?

  You said:
  

  I can see that your feelings are simply that this is the way they do it....get used to it.

  No, that is not my feelings, though it may be a truism.

  My feeling is that nothing is wrong with the Society’s exercising its discretion in how to handle our requests. If we did not want them to do that then we would not make request to them in the first place. Also, I see nothing negative about receiving a personal visit informing us of the Society’s discretion versus receiving it in writing.

  My point is that as a "Mother" they should show a little more consideration for their children.

  Then you apparently feel that a “mother” choosing to respond in person is less motherly than one responding from a distance. Is that what you are saying?

  Friend
• 

  RedhorseWoman

  If one does not know the procedure, and one expects it to be similar to the procedures experienced when dealing with other entities, one cannot be castigated for being shocked at what they consider to be a gross disregard of their rights.

  I'm sure that those who have received this treatment will never write again to the Society. Their point in this whole discussion was to warn others of what they would be likely to experience.

  I'm not saying that a mother shouldn't respond in person. I'm simply saying that a considerate mother would call first before dropping in.
• 

  Friend

  RedhorseWoman

  If one does not know the procedure, and one expects it to be similar to the procedures experienced when dealing with other entities, one cannot be castigated for being shocked at what they consider to be a gross disregard of their rights.

  Your comment is circular to your intended inference. Who says the individual ever knew the “procedure” was otherwise? If they “don’t know” then they don’t know what to expect anyway—just as you expressed. In that case, persons are equally apt to be shocked if they receive a written reply rather than a personal one? Certainly you continue leaning on your weak notion that other entities would not assign a local agent to handle your needs when that is not at all the case. Some may do that and some may not. That latter point is yet another of your conclusions that has completely ignored critical questions regarding it that I have raised. As I pointed out, large corporations have local agents respond in their behalf on a regular basis. Examples include the FBI, Insurance companies, etc….

  BTW, you keep speaking of a “right” yet you have yet to demonstrate that such a “right” as you conclude even exists; that despite being asked for such evidence. Just another in a long list of questions left unresolved for your conclusions.

  I'm sure that those who have received this treatment will never write again to the Society. Their point in this whole discussion was to warn others of what they would be likely to experience.

  Warn them of what? That the Society responded to their letters? In the past I have made some requests of the Society that I wished they had sent a local representative to discuss with me. They chose to respond in their own way because that what I asked of them. I asked for their response. Again, on this issue you have ignored critical questions to your conclusions.

  I'm not saying that a mother shouldn't respond in person. I'm simply saying that a considerate mother would call first before dropping in.

  When you call your mother and leave a message on her recorder that you need her help, do you consider it an act of inconsiderateness for her to rush over in person as soon as possible? I mean, whose calling who here?(!) Let’s not distort this thing into “The Society just dropped in on me!” when you are the one that called them with a request. Do you want their answer or not? That is the only question to be answered.

  Friend

  Edited by - Friend on 7 June 2000 15:34:38
• 

  RedhorseWoman

  Who says the individual ever knew the “procedure” was otherwise? If they “don’t know” then they don’t know what to expect anyway—just as you expressed. In that case, persons are equally apt to be shocked if they receive a written reply rather than a personal one?

  Those who have expressed concerns on this bulletin board have also expressed the fact that they did not know of the procedure. They have stated several times that they expected to receive a written reply. They stated several times that they NEVER expected a personal visit from a local elder. Perhaps you missed their posts.

  And why should they be equally shocked to receive a written reply? When you write to either a corporation or an individual, you don't expect to be ignored. Most people would expect to receive a written reply.

  As I pointed out, large corporations have local agents respond in their behalf on a regular basis. Examples include the FBI, Insurance companies, etc….

  I told you that I agreed with this statement. However, perhaps you didn't notice that I also stated that, in my experience with any sort of agency, I have ALWAYS received a letter informing me of what action they intended to take, and when.

  Warn them of what?

  You know very well of what they felt they needed to warn others. You've presumably read their posts. They felt they needed to warn others that the local elders might very well show up at their door unexpectedly. They felt they needed to warn others that their confidential letters to the Society weren't all that confidential.

  When you call your mother and leave a message on her recorder that you need her help, do you consider it an act of inconsiderateness for her to rush over in person as soon as possible?

  Unless it's a life or death situation (and in that case it's unlikely that my daughter would leave a message on my answering machine), I would DEFINITELY find out when it would be convenient for me to stop by....i.e. I would return her call. And, I would definitely NOT send Mr. Smith to her house in my place without letting her know.

  Do you want their answer or not? That is the only question to be answered.

  I have personally never written the Society, and I WILL tell you that since I have found out about the way they handle these matters, I will NEVER do so. If there is something that I don't feel I could comfortably discuss with a local elder, I will just find some other way to get the information. If it is an important matter (such as the problems Waiting has had to encounter) I would definitely get in touch with a lawyer and let them deal with the rest of it.

  Edited by - RedhorseWoman on 7 June 2000 16:17:46
• 

  waiting

  Go Big Red!!!!! (That's a college football slogan and has nothing to do with your size!!!!)

  There are experiences on the web about persons who have obtained lawyers and lawsuits against the Society. Have big bucks and a mean lawyer on your side - you'll need it.

  One experience is of a young man molested by a brother (elders knew he was a molester) in Atlanta. Landed in the courts in 1999. The young man lost. Part of the court decision can be found at Jehovahs Witnesses United or Beyond Jehovah's Witnesses. (There are so many JW sites!) It's listed on title page under court cases.

  There are many other cases I've seen - almost all individuals who are listed have lost. Now, Friend might counter with some who have won - but I don't think so. If you had won a case against an organization - don't you think you would talk about it (unless silence was part of the settlement conditions)?

  We all have marveled at how the Society's Legal Dept. have fought for the freedom of Jehovah's Witnesses. Domestic, foreign, blood, etc. - they are nearly fanatical in upholding their rights and righteousness. However, if you ever have the misfortune of having their Legal Dept. turn their attention to you....they are attorneys - and their position is to protect the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, in my opinion. I know.

  Don't let Friend rattle you. BTW, your arguments are getting lengthier and better, and he said that was his aim, just to make us better!

  On the point as to when someone writes the Society, "do you want an answer or not?" That is the question. Well, obviously, if I had wanted my Presiding Overseer knocking on my door, I would have poured out my situation with him, now wouldn't I.

  But, no, I wanted my beloved Society to respond to me. I didn't mind the Circuit Overseer, he's a "company man" but I appreciated his insight as to the stupidity of some elders' actions. So, Friend is right about the CO responding for the Society. But I, as a wounded mother, did not want to hear further from my PO - naturally, I had already talked to him, as I had been taught.
  I did not want him at my house, I had not invited him, but out of courtesy, I had no choice but to let him in.