by yadda yadda 2 16 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Any elder with considerable financial assets should be very concerned of any possible legal implications from the results of any judicial action in a case like this. I would make damn well sure the WTS didn't leave me hung out to dry and holding the bag on a decision. Does the WTS indemnify the elders? I really don't remember much discussion on this matter. Of course back then I was naive and idealistic and didn't have the assets I have today.
Think About It
Posted before, but I saw a potential "smoking" DFing avoided because the old guy's doctor told the committee that it might cause him to have a heart attack if he suddenly quit. They ended up telling him not to smoke in public anymore.
This was in the 1960s.
As always with a committee, it all depends which elders are sitting on that particular committee and how much they dislike the perp.
Not even death will prevent being DFd.
I knew a person who was terminally ill and the elders met with them on their death bed to inform them of their decision to DF. In between the time they were informed and the 7 day appeal period ended the person died.
So, naturally the wages sin pays is death, right?
Nope. Not in WT law.
They announced the person DFd after the death but before the funeral in order to try to keep congregation members from going to the funeral of a DFd person.
I personally know of cases where elders have held back from disfellowshipping - dementia, schizophrenia, depression and personality disorder. However the important point is that the congregation were aware that these individuals had these conditions and those who asked were told the reason why they were not disfellowshipped.
But on the other hand there have been too many cases where those with such conditions and worse have been disfellowshipped.
I am wondering about this because I see that according to guidelines from Headquarters, the elders will back off and refer the matter to the Branch if "legal action" is threatened by the person being summoned to the enquiry/JC. I have heard of cases where elders get nervous about threats of legal action and so they take no further action.
Just wanted to say that I threatened them with legal action in writing and was still DF'd. They are getting around this now by changing the announcement to "so & so is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses". It is "proved" by the mere fact that you don't attend the meetings apparently.
Michelle
I remember the question being asked once at an elders teach in session "What bearing should a person's mental health play on the decision of a J C?"
The answer was that if a person is mentally cognizant to live unaided and function in society (ie not a complete retard) then it has no bearing at all.. We are still accountable for our actions.
If they took note of the message, it may gain a brief stay of execution but no more
This might be as good a place as any to point out that from what little the NT has to say on the subject, (and of course disfellowshipping is not really used at all) - limiting association with non-believers was more of a personal issue for individual ancient christians than a sort of talmudic court of law; and that nothing much is said about it being a "disciplinary action" toward "wrongdoers".
For what it is worth, while I never saw one in person, I strongly suspect that there have been a number of persons DFed (perhaps for demonism) just because of irrational mental conditions.
I did see a family disfellowshipped for demonism because they were enamored with an unconventional native American health remedy - and would not back down on it.
