'necessary family business'...just what is it?

by Aussie Oz 20 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  blondie

  In some states children may not be able to be disinherited totally. Parents may then leave then $1 to fulfill the legal requirements.

  In other states, spouses cannot be disinherited.

  But I have seen jw/df'd jw close family work together on this without being cruel to one another.

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

  I might add that currently the policy is to "punish" active jws that attend weddings of inactive jw family members or active jw family that marry non-jws, removing them as elders and/or MS, and taking them off the pioneer list.

  This wasn't true 20 years ago in that the BOE in general did not make jws adhere to their policy but let each person make their own decision. Thus I saw elders attend a wedding of a jw family member (see above) and other jws stay away.
• 

  pirata

  Aussie,

  If you are still able to communicate with your son, can that even if he does not formally invite you, he can let you know the times/addresses of the proceedings?

  I did a search in the Watchtower library. There are cautions about inviting disfellowshipped ones to receptions. But nowhere is any mention made of attending the ceremony. You have every right to attend the ceremony, and there is no information to say that you can be prevented from doing so.

  *** w97 4/15 p. 25 Weddings That Honor Jehovah ***

  Experience has shown that a good way to limit the number of guests is by using specific invitations in writing. It is wiser to invite individuals instead of whole congregations, and as orderly Christians, we should respect such limitations. Written invitations also help us to avoid the embarrassment of having a disfellowshipped person show up at the reception, for if that happened, many brothers and sisters might choose to leave. (1 Corinthians 5:9-11) If a couple invite unbelieving relatives or acquaintances, these will no doubt be limited in number, giving more importance to those “related to us in the faith.” (Galatians 6:10) Some have chosen to invite worldly acquaintances or unbelieving relatives to the wedding talk rather than to the reception. Why? Well, there have been cases when worldly relatives created such an embarrassing situation at a wedding reception that many brothers and sisters felt that they could not remain. Some couples have arranged to have only a small dinner with close family members and Christian friends.
• 

  nugget

  I always thought that family business was a generic term for nothing at all. The society will probably say that if it involves some sort of financial burden then the df'd person should be expected to pay up but if it is anything else then no contact is necessary. If on the other hand if you were grindingly poor and in dire straits the family has no obligation to help you out. Family business is very one sided as are all things JW. In the case of divorce family business would be what is decided by the courts.

  It is left vague so that people are left to decide for themselves and as a result will err on the side of caution. Weddings are not necessary family business and in fact others have had experiences where the couple have been told directly that DF'd relatives must be excluded to ensure that they can get married in a kigdom hall. DF'd relatives are certainly not welcome at the reception. The only difference might be if the couple were 16 and still needed parental consent.

  It is a disgusting process that corrupts joyful family events and turns them into a battleground and a method of further punnishment.
• 

  Finally-Free

  A DF'd child helping an elderly JW parent is "necessary family business".

  A JW parent helping a DF'd child is not "necessary family business." The DF'd child has left the "spirit directed organization", and is reaping what he has sown. He deserves to suffer, and JWs view his suffering with happy hearts, gossiping about it whenever possible.

  The only "necessary family business" is that which benefits the JW.

  W
• 

  yourmomma

  Im pretty sure there has been a crack down on what family buisness is as at the last assembly someone posted that they said that for example taking your DF'd relative to the doctor is NOT family buisness. The new july 15th WT either dumbed or dumber version uses the word RARE, and there was a comment at the annual meeting about it also. I think its only a matter of time before the watchtower DF policy becomes like Scientology's disconnection policy which is zero contact ever no matter what.
• 

  DesirousOfChange

  In the past, "necessary family business" was left to the individual to determine. However, if it resulted in notoriety in the congregation, a publisher may not quality for positions (elder, MS, pioneer) or privledges of service (even walking mic), all of that left to the determination of the body of elders. However, one could NOT be dealt with via a JC for what they deemed "necessary business" regardless what the elders thought about it.

  I now wonder, however, if a person is BRAZEN about their association with DFd relatives, if this new "sin" is going to be applied to it (or anything else they determine qualifies as "brazen")??????? If so, FADING will become more important to those who want to be able to stay in contact with active JDub family.
• 

  Aussie Oz

  The WT has made it pretty clear that a JW wedding is NOT about the couple,

  but is about appearances and not stumbling others.

  schmucks

  i loath them more every day

  oz
• 

  Roski

  In my case it involves the following:

  Not being able to take the role of the Enduring Power of Attorney for the remaining parent (this role was taken over by the elders), and therefore:

  Not being informed as to any health/medical issues including the outcome of medical checks.

  Not being informed about housing issues - ie selling the family property to move into an aged home.

  Not being informed about any/all financial matters - ie investments etc.

  and any other normal communication such as what to do with the deceased person's ashes.

  All of the above (and more) are now controlled by the elders who took control of matters but who, upon investigation by government officials said they were happy to 'converse' with me as to the best way to take care of the aged person. That was until I stipulated a meeting with all of the elders involved (including one from Bethel) and to have complete transparency of all legal/medical domumentation and a statutory declaration saying that all such documentation was accurate and complete. The elders now say a meeting is not 'worthwhile' - and so the investigation continues. It is interesting how little the 'good name of Jehovah' matters in such situations. Non association with 'unassociating members' (not d/f or d/a) is nothing but a crude form of control in order for the organisation to manipulate people's lives to their own best intersts.
• 

  blondie

  Roski, I was wondering if your parent signed over the POA responsibilities to the elders. When we were still in, my husband had no jw relatives except me and chose an elder for his secondary POA in case I was dead or incapacitated. Were you originally listed as a Healthcare Proxy on a document by your parent? Many jws are terrified that a non-jw (or ex-jw) close relative will force a transfusion on them.
• 

  MrMonroe

  Pirata nails it. The definition is left intentionally loose so that it can be interpreted by the local BOE. If they want to crucify you they have carte blanche.