Personal Grudges and Judicial Committees: is There a Link?

by passwordprotected 35 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  slimboyfat

  Faders are the problem the WTBTS, under the guidance of The Governing Body, will address over the next 3 years.

  What makes you think that? Isn't there just a bit of wishful thinking involved there? You want the Watchtower organization to become more hardline to vindicate your low opinion of them and help flush out more members, perhaps including people you know who are still in. But what if the organization becomes less hardline? Would you welcome that or would you be disappointed? For what it's worth I think you made the right decision to leave regardless of whether the organization becomes more hardline or not. Don't make your estimation of your choice dependent on whatever they decide to do in the future.

  Personally I think the organization could go either way, depending on events (legal challenges) or the whim of whoever is in charge. Or boringly they could just stay roughly the same as "this system keeps groaning on".

  Having listened to all the material posted I think Matthew's fate was sealed the moment he accused Ronnie Hunter of slander. Matthew refused to play the role of the cowed Witness in the face of the elders interfering with his family but took them on at their own rhetorical game. Faced with the claim that they had acted improperly Ronnie Hunter decided Matthew simply had to go in order to uphold his own righteousness and he did everything in his power to accomplish that end.
• 

  sizemik

  Mathews fate was sealed early . . . just how early I'm not sure . . . well before the "shepherds" took a personal interest in him I suspect.

  While his efforts where ultimately futile, the guy had some style. The 'power of the passive' at it's best . . .

  I will enjoy reading this again sometime
• 

  passwordprotected

  What makes you think that? Isn't there just a bit of wishful thinking involved there? You want the Watchtower organization to become more hardline to vindicate your low opinion of them and help flush out more members, perhaps including people you know who are still in. But what if the organization becomes less hardline? Would you welcome that or would you be disappointed? For what it's worth I think you made the right decision to leave regardless of whether the organization becomes more hardline or not. Don't make your estimation of your choice dependent on whatever they decide to do in the future.

  If I remember correctly, your choice to remain a Witness (and I'm guessing, fade?) is so that your aunt will continue to speak to you. That might influence how your read my comments on faders, no?

  You want the Watchtower organization to become more hardline to vindicate your low opinion of them and help flush out more members, perhaps including people you know who are still in.

  Really, I do? You know that for a fact?

  My low opinion of "them"; who is "them"?

  But what if the organization becomes less hardline? Would you welcome that or would you be disappointed?

  My personal feelings over what the Watch Tower Society does or doesn't do aren't being discussed. As it happens, I don't believe the Organisation will become less hardline. The recent reemphasis over relationships with disfellowshipped family members (twice in 3 months?) suggests a certain hardline stance.

  What has my "estimation of my choice" got to do with the obvious tightening of control on the Witnesses by The Governing Body? Did the fact that I disassociated from the high control environment of the Watch Tower Society mean that my opinions on how The Governing Body are operating wrong or irrelevant? If so, how does that work?

  Could it be that you have an element of fear lingering over you, that because you're still ostensibly identified, via your baptism, as a Jehovah's Witness, the Society has some sort of control over your future? For example, if they did crack down on faders, it would impact on your life via family relationships?

  I sympathise up to a point.
• 

  passwordprotected

  Having listened to all the material posted I think Matthew's fate was sealed the moment he accused Ronnie Hunter of slander. Matthew refused to play the role of the cowed Witness in the face of the elders interfering with his family but took them on at their own rhetorical game. Faced with the claim that they had acted improperly Ronnie Hunter decided Matthew simply had to go in order to uphold his own righteousness and he did everything in his power to accomplish that end.

  You're probably right re. Ron's involvement. I know for a fact that my parents had been pestering the elders in Matt's congregation to get something done about him (and cardboard ninja). They'd been gathering evidence against him based on his on-going friendship with my wife and I, as alluded to in the recordings; they'd gone on holiday with us, a holiday that had originally been planned with one of the elders on the original judicial committee.

  That being said, Matt had moved house and hadn't been to a meeting for around 6 months. They actively pursued him very quickly after his 25th December encounter with Ron in the Bishopbriggs Kingdom Hall.

  Ron likes to play Mr Meek and Mild, but it should be apparent to even the most pro-JW listeners that the guy had an agenda and could barely contain his ire at Matt's audacious questioning. Notice how, when seemingly backed into a corner regarding his own allged slander, he started asking Matt theological questions. Matt's replies gave Ron the ammunition to relaunch their investigation against him.

  That's where the lack of ethics come in;

  • Ron was one of two elders who had "shepherded" Matt and his wife
  • information disclosed by the couple at these visits where re-visited by Ron during his confrontation with Matt
  • Ron became the chief accuser against Matt
  • Ron was the chief witness to the accusations against Matt
  • the other witness to the accusations was the other elder who had "shepherded" them
• 

  besty

  @SBF - My belief (no supporting evidence and impossible to prove) is that the WTS will tend to become more hardline going forward. Which is more likely:

  Watchtower In 'Wear What You Like To The Meetings' Shocker!

  or

  Watchtower Refines Understanding of Christian Dress & Grooming (see Bethel Visits Dress and Grooming)

  You get my point I guess....

  Whether the WTS decide to 'address' faders in a 3 year time frame is very much open to speculation, which us peanut throwers love to engage in ;-)

  
• 

  passwordprotected

  Let's be pragmatic for a minute, and use a 5 year timescale.

  Who of us, while we were active JWs 5 years ago, would have thought that the WTBTS would publish revisions to the 1935 theology and the "generation" theology, which itself was tweaked twice in quick succession, which would severly readjust their eschatology?

  Who of us, while we were active JWs 5 years ago, would have thought that the WTBTS would abolish the home group arrangement, and all but outlaw (via the September 2007 KM Question Box) private group Bible study?

  The Watch Tower Society, under the direction of The Governing Body, does whatever it needs to do to protect its assets. And its assets are money and property. That means they will absolutely make sure their butt is covered legally. That also means they need a hard core acolyte following that only ever farts when they're allowed to.

  Faders do not fall in line with that.

  The WTBTS will only get more hardline. They need to run a tighter ship.

  Perhaps this needs to move to a new thread?
• 

  passwordprotected

  Talking about dress and grooming, gotta love these guys... I wonder where The Governing Body gets its ideas from;
• 

  passwordprotected
• 

  Quendi

  bookmarking.

  I also want to add that my JC told me a strange thing when I was disfellowshipped. They said they didn't want to do it but had no choice in the matter. I interpreted that to mean that there are circumstances when a JC is directed by the Flock book to disfellowship someone regardless of the circumstances. So much for the whole procedure being 'guided by holy spirit'! Well, I didn't realize it at the time but the JC did me a big favor. I'm now free and will never return but I want to read up on this case.

  Quendi
• 

  slimboyfat

  I want to answer some points later when I have time, but just at the moment I want to suggest that if you step back a bit Jehovah's Witnesses have become much more liberal in the past few decades. Consider the change in accepting alternative serice in place of service in the military. In many countries that means young JWs no longer have to fear going to jail, a huge change for those affected. And it removes a serious source of conflict that used to exist between JWs and various governments and society in general.

  I think the pressures for Jehovah's Witnesses to continue liberalization are much greater than any foreseeable pressure to become more hardline. Sure they might hassle members with a certain dress code if they want to visit bethel, but the desire for acceptance from wordly governments means they are likely to continue compromising on more and more issues.