True LostGeneration, the criteria do seem pretty vague on first reading. However, you need to remember that the paragraph is discussing an act of wrongdoing on the part of the "household member", and not simply failure to attend meetings.
Cedars
Question... Does an elder lose his privileges if his 18 year old son stops attending the KH?
by Alfred 43 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
cedars
Billy, I don't see anything in your reference that contradicts the 2010 manual.
For example:
On the other hand, if an elder has several minor children living at home who, one after the other, become spiritually sick and get into trouble, he might no longer be considered to be “a man presiding over his own household in a fine manner.” (1 Timothy 3:4) The point is, it should be manifest that an overseer is doing his best to have ‘believing children that are not under a charge of debauchery nor unruly.’
The above quote pretty-much describes wrongdoing, and multiple wrongdoing at that. I don't think that is what we are discussing?
Cedars
-
Billy the Ex-Bethelite
"Alfred's brother in law could only have his qualifications reviewed if his son commits WRONGDOING."
Technically, you would be correct if you remove the word "only." Remember, an elders qualifications can be reviewed if he supports his child going away to university. In actual practice, my dad's qualifications were called into question because one of his kids still living at home wasn't commenting enough and had low hours. An elder's qualifications can get called into question for numerous reasons. My qualifications were called into question and I was removed for something so petty, even a later CO asked me WTH were they thinking?
-
Billy the Ex-Bethelite
Cedars, I understand and agree with what you're saying, but the original question was:
"I'm referring to the possibility of an elder losing his privileges because his son no longer wishes to be a JW but still lives under the same roof... any insight by recently faded elders would be much appreciated..."
Regardless of quotes from the litteratrash, in actual practice, the "brothers" can be brutal at intimidation and abuse, without clear scriptural support, obviously. Just a year ago an elder in my old hall was nearly removed by the CO just because he had an 18+ child living at home with low hours and not commenting. Yes, the kid was still attending. The reasoning by the CO was that the father wasn't presiding correctly. And the kid has since moved out, so the father continues to serve.
-
cedars
Billy, I'm sure you have experiences to back up what you're saying. I won't deny that certain congregations are a rule unto themselves, and throw the rulebook out the window when if comes to dealing with these matters. However, what I'm saying is based on written procedures contained in the latest elders manual.
There are five scenarios prescribed in the manual for calling an elder's qualifications into dispute:
- Members of the brother's household are involved in serious wrongdoing
- A disfellowshipped or disassociated family member moves back into the home
- Bankruptcy
- Tacit approval of a marriage between a baptized Christian and a person who is not baptized
- If it comes to light or if an appointed brother confesses that he has committed a disfellowshipping offense years in the past
Last time I checked, we were talking about a son who no longer wishes to go to the meetings?
Cedars
-
undercover
No matter what's written, it all comes down to how many douchebags are on the elder body. The more douchebaggery they are, the more strict the intrepretation of the WT policy, even going beyond what's written even.
There are good elders out there, they're not all douchebags. But in the last few years, it's apparent that more and more "good guy" elders are burning out, giving up, dropping out, leaving the sanctimonuous, over righteous, smug, assholes behind to interpret and enforce the rules/policies as they see fit. Which in turn means more burdening of the sheeple who too easily acquiesce to the supposed authority of these douchebags.
So, in this case, if they so wish to force the issue, then by Jehovah they will. He then has two choices: stand up to the bullies and call their bluff (not likely, if he's a KoolAid drinker) or fuck his family over, kick his son out and keep his oh-so-precious position as an ass-kissing lackey to the WTS.
-
breakfast of champions
In our hall, the son of an elder got disfellowshipped while living at home. The father gave him a couple month window to leave. Within that window fell the visit of an arrogant prick CO, who forced the issue, and tried to get the elder removed. The other elders fought back On behalf of the brother- this elder was a go-getter, did a lot of work. I heard it was an elders/CO fight of historic proportions.
In the end, the elder barely kept his position, but pressured his son to find work and leave ASAP. Having no skills -- and of course no education -- the kid did the only thing he could do and joined the army. His parents were devastated, and said if they had known he was going to do that, they wouldn't have pushed so hard.
Lovely religion, ain't it?
-
iclone
I served as an elder for close to 15 years. One of my baptized children began dating a non-believer (WT slang for dirty rotten worldly scum) the elders talked to my child but would not sacrifice his/her relationship. It was concluded that no actual wrongdoing was committed so the CO recommended to the body to review my qualifications and a marking talk be given on the dangers of dating a non believer. It was a relief as I could not bear to serve any longer due to my new found knowledge. The principle that was evoked in my case was some earlier references, “would I still have respect from the congregation”. I did not wait for the tribunal to decide my fate. I gladly stepped aside, and what a relief it has been. In my opinion “Cedars” and “Billy the Ex-Bethelite”, this point of maintaining the respect from the congregation is their “out-clause”. What do you do to determine this? Take a poll? In reality it rests on the decision of the body to determine congregation respect regardless of how objectionable they might be.
Incidentally, a “Marking Talk” was never given!
-
cedars
Thanks iclone - I appreciate that candid account. Like you, I now look back on standing down as an elder as a real blessing in disguise.
Reading all of the above comments, and comparing them with what is actually contained in the latest elders manual I can't help but ask the question:
Have things changed recently in favour of giving fewer grounds for elders to be removed because the Society is fearful of losing too many elders?
It's worth considering, and may explain the discrepancy between what's contained in the latest elders manual and how things have been dealt with in the past.
Cedars
-
IamPresence2012
Interesting that he would rather side with the WT than his own flesh n blood. His son is still a part of him regardless. But then again the WT has such a strong hold in mind control that his father will shy away from his son to keep the elites happy. Ofcourse you do not want to anger YWH, he may need a sacrifice,, which he will happily do. Who else rules in fear? People will fear WT than they fear God or Satan,,,