Must the Elders Always be Told? (page 2)

konceptual99

You may want to read the following article from the w10 9/1 22-24. It presents the WTS view of confession. Whilst sins should be confessed (in the catholic sense) to God since only he can forgive, they should also be admitted to the elders so they can provide spiritual shepherding.

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/pc/r1/lp-e/1200271344/0/0

The online library has plenty of other stuff about grassing people up etc. Just look up Confession as a topic.

snugglebunny

Thanks for that. However, there was defifitely a WT that specifically stated that minor disfellowshipping matters (minor, hah!) could be dealt with by simply confessing to someone else without the need for a JC. The WT also stated categorically that this didn't apply to sexual matters. Probably an 80's or 90's WT.

pbrow

Hey data-dog.... you forget something....

You may pm me your confession.... but please be REAL specific!! I like details...

pbrow

dozy

I think essentially the position is that sins should always be confessed to an elder but in not all cases would the matter go to a judicial committee - in some cases a couple of elders would just give "strong counsel" and let the matter lie.

About ten years ago when I was an elder myself and another elder once were summoned by a young pioneer couple who had been married for a few years & decided to fess up that they had been a bit naughty before being married ( not full intercourse but pretty much everything else. ) They deliberately chose to confess to us as we had a reputation of being kind & discreet ( so they said. )

We were very wary of sharing this information with the rest of the BOE as some were hard liners who would remove them from being pioneers & maybe even form a JC & others had very gossipy wives who were bound to find out via pillow talk and blab to everyone in the congregation.

We weren't too sure what to do so we phoned the CO who basically told us just to keep it quiet & just tell them that as it had happened a few years ago & they evidently still had Jehovah's blessing ( yuk ) then it would go no further.

Another documented example would be viewing soft porn - eg *** w06 7/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***

Some Christians have become involved in the viewing of pornography. This is offensive to God, and the elders may be shocked that a fellow believer has done this. But not all viewing of pornography calls for a hearing before a judicial committee. For example, suppose a brother viewed so-called soft-core pornography on several occasions. He is ashamed, confesses to an elder, and is determined not to repeat this sin. The elder might well conclude that the brother’s conduct did not escalate to the point that he engaged in “uncleanness . . . with greediness”; nor did he display a brazen attitude, indicating loose conduct. Although no judicial action would be warranted, this type of uncleanness would call for strong Scriptural counsel and perhaps follow-up help from the elders.

adjusted knowledge

I knew a "brother" from another congregation that confessed to an Elder for fornication. The problem was it was the Elder's daughter this "brother" was fornicating with. Neither one of them got DF, but the Elder's daughter was treated as the victim.

Fernando

DATA-DOG's simple and powerful logic has my vote.

In other words: "the Elders must NEVER be Told".

The man-made religious institution of "elders" exists only to judge.

That is why they form Judging Committees - which in evil wolf-like fashion protect wolves and shred sheep until they gnaw bones (Zephaniah 3:3).

*** jd chap. 6 p. 78 par. 17 “Let Justice Roll Forth”—A Key to Knowing God ***
Justice was ripped to shreds by leaders who preyed on the people rather than caring for them.

That is why they do not have "Repentance Counseling Committees" or "Spiritual Healing Committees".

snugglebunny

As a young man I was always told that any DF'ing offence committed meant that a JC was the only way towards being absolved from whatever sin one had committed, anything else would result in death at armageddon.

DesirousOfChange

I actually recall a QFR over 10 years ago that actually leaned to the fact that "men" cannot absolve us from sin, so repentance comes from God. However, the example of David was given that he was in such emotional turmoil and did not receive relief until confessing to Samuel. Thus, the Elders are there to sooth with "oil" and adjust the sinner (who is no doubt having sleepless nights like David, and who is suffering from tremendous guilt) onto the right path to salvation and help restore their relationship with God.

It astounded me, as I thought "well if I have no crushing feeling of guilt and am sleeping OK, then I suppose God saw me as repentant and WTF do I need the elders involved"?

Really, all the Elders do is F#(K it up and leak info to the wives which gets the rumor mill and gossip flourishing in the Cong and Circuit.

Doc

Must the Elders Always be Told?

Share this