Borg court: 1st session (page 5)

isaacaustin

Awesome! Great to hear that and congrats.

I take it you will not be raising your new addition as a JW? Just kidding. LOL

jookbeard

LOL pop over to Facebook and check out the recent pics

isaacaustin

Will do after work. Can't access it here. Congrats again. That's awesome news.

hamsterbait

If the sin occurred "YEARS" ago why are they dredging it up now?

The Question Box in "Our Kingdumb Misery" made it clear that here is a statute of limitations on sins.

If you were accepted and blessed by their god after you married, no action should be taken.

(Were you appointed as an elduh or used in other ways?) Then you are forgiven. They have unfortunately diverted the issue to whether you will bow down to their Golden Cow the Gibbering Buddies.

Your fate is already sealed.

HB

isaacaustin

Hamsterbait, the KM stated there is a statute of limitation? That does not sound right. Can you post or refer me to the reference?

Think About It

If the sin occurred "YEARS" ago why are they dredging it up now?

Because they love this kind of nonsense. Gives some a sense of power, some get to boast of their self-reighteousness, and some actually get some sick stimulation of hearing about others sexcapades. Some are sincere, but it's only because they believe WTS law calls for this action to be taken.

I'm not saying you can sin with impunity and remain a very visable part of the cong., but each situation is unique. From what I gather of the situation, since it was brought to the elders attention, it should have been a 1 meeting encouraging discussion to sin no more, then case closed. The elders are either trying to make him bow down to their conceived absolute authority, just like hearing this stuff, or are more interested in the questioning of WTS doctrine.

Think About It

isaacaustin

I am almost certain there is no 'statute of limitation'. Generally, if the individual is cowtowing to the elders demands it would be handled with a private rerpoof. If not, it can be used by the elders to oust who they please, provided 3 elders agree. The WT considers itself above the laws of the land, terms such as statue of limitation are not a part of their vocabulary.

isaacaustin

SD-7, perhaps I missed it but how did this come to the elders attention?

sd-7

Ah, finally able to post freely again. I think. Isaacaustin, in response to your inquiries, my wife was DF'ed almost 5 years ago, reinstated in late '08. This came to the elders' attention at what was originally supposed to be a 'shepherding call'. My wife told them all about it. The thing I really appreciate about all of this is that she did not tell me beforehand that she was going to do so. I just now realized that. Wow. And she says I don't communicate with HER. Might want to mention that next time.

Well, there you have it. Does that clear it up?

I think she feels like I secretly despise her for ratting me out. Although I do recall her saying, "I will not be thought of as a rat." I mean, by insider logic, her choice was understandable. I'm not an insider, though. She seems to wonder why I don't share my thoughts with her anymore. Hmm. Maybe because the last time I was open and honest with you, you sold me out? Tends to disrupt the whole trust thing. But I don't despise her. I still love her the same. Maybe I am mad at her, secretly, but I'm more irked at myself for even being in this situation. Unappreciated and viewed as uncaring and selfish by the woman I spent 5 years waiting for. Sucks.

Well, better stop talking now. Got the PM, Jamie. Thanks.

--Christopher

sd-7

she did not tell me beforehand that she was going to do so.

Footnote on that--she did tell me beforehand, but it was like, 10 seconds beforehand, when we were right there at the shepherding call. Short notice.

--Christopher

Borg court: 1st session

Share this