Question... Does an elder lose his privileges if his 18 year old son stops attending the KH?

by Alfred 43 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Billy the Ex-Bethelite

  Cedars, I guess part of the technicality is in the wording. Of the different cases involving the children of elders that I've known, if a minor child living at home is disfellowshipped, 100% there will be a meeting about his qualifications and it may be black-or-white, kick him or keep him. However in most cases, the children are "weak," involved in "questionable conduct," or inappropriate dress and grooming. Those cases rarely led to an official meeting of "kick him or keep him." It was usually a case that the subject will get brought up over and over in many elders meetings and when the CO visits. I've heard plenty of these conversations:

  "We've noticed that Br. Elder's son has low hours and isn't commenting. Is there something we can do to help?"

  "Well, he's going through a rough phase."

  "Yes, often happens at that age. Perhaps he's influenced by worldly friends, maybe a girlfriend."

  "No, he spends most of his time home in his room."

  "Does he have the Internet in his room. Is he doing anything... inappropriate, that would make it difficult for him to maintain his spirituality."

  ... and this type of thing could go on for a long time and repeated grilling during many elders meetings. And the vibe will often be very strong that they are questioning his qualifications, even though they never get to the official "kick him or keep him" meeting. It's a lot of threats, fear, intimidation that the elder than passes along to his family to keep them in line. Brothers often have to answer for their wives low hours, missing meetings, tight clothes, etc. Although they don't actually remove a brother's "privileges", they certainly flex that threat. Often the brothers don't get removed, instead they get tired of the abuse and step down for "family responsibilities".
• 

  cedars

  Hi Billy, I very much appreciate your insight. And yes, I can well understand how in certain congregations elders may receive "peer pressure" over what's going on with their kids, and it may all get too much. Perhaps this is what the elder in the original post is concerned about.

  However, in the brief time that I served, calling another elder's qualifications into question was a strict taboo, and one wouldn't enter down that road unless one had pretty damning evidence stacked against the elder concerned. I suppose to a certain extent it varies from congregation to congregation, body to body.

  That said, in briefly comparing the old "Pay Attention" manual to the latest "Shepherd the Flock" update, it does seem at first glance that the causes for deletion have been "simplified" somewhat. I haven't done an exhaustive comparison, so anyone is more than welcome to correct me. However, it strikes me that it is in the Society's interests to improve "elder retention" by cutting back on petty deletions.

  More elders means more control over the masses.

  Cedars
• 

  DesirousOfChange

  DesirousofChange, have you ever actually served as an elder?

  You contradicted something I said on another post about judicial procedure, and when I showed the actual paragraph from the elders manual proving that what I said was true, there was no reply. What gives?

  Cedars, PM me regarding the JC comment and I will review what you are questioning, or just put a link here. Everything in the book is SO subjective. Almost anything can be overlooked in the name of "repentance" and the most incidental thing can be blown into a (now the term is) "brazen conduct". Billy's response just above here is "right on". My personal experience is that there is a great effort being made to rationalize anything necessary to retain an elder. In fact, I'm totally shocked at some of the things I've seen "passed over" to keep some elders in position. Yeah, it usually means it's a well-liked, very generous, well-positioned elder.

  I can only assure you that I speak from many years of personal experience.

  Respectfully.

  DOC
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  Let's not argue over minute details:

  Alfred's brother in law could only have his qualifications reviewed if his son commits WRONGDOING. Last time I checked, not going to the meetings anymore isn't in itself an act of wrongdoing.

  In reality, "not wanting to be a JW" is wrongdoing that leads to DA. Besides, most elder fathers would assume that inactive JW's would start doing things that are defined as "wrongdoing" by Jehovah's Witnesses. Even short of actually defining it as wrong, if the kid goes to any college classes, Dad's qualifications are coming into question.

  Even if the son were never to be caught in wrongdoing, a body could decide that the "inactive" status is enough to question Dad's qualifications. Cedars, just because your body of elders felt it better be sure before questioning qualifications doesn't mean they are all like that. I was in a cong. that did question qualifications a couple of times but left the elders on the body afterward. Heck, one was the P.O. at the time. They all acted lovey-dovey afterward, but it could have left hard feelings. They did it anyway, thinking it was the right thing to do.

  The reality of this situation is that Dad already kicked him out. That's a preemptive strike to show his son he prefers eldership over fatherhood. That's what that frigging cult does to people.
• 

  finally awake

  A MS in my former hall was removed when his teenage son started acting up. As far as I know, the kid hadn't really done anything awful when the dad was removed, nor had he even lived with his dad his whole life. The kid did end up in jail for stealing a car, but that was after dad was removed. All this happened several years ago, and dad has never been reinstated as an MS.

  In contrast, the COBOE is married to a woman who has never gotten baptized, doesn't go out in service, rarely participates on the school, and does not comment. His kids were *not* exemplary - he had to pull his daughter out of public school to keep her away from the worldly boys, and her conduct with her JW boyfriend in front of people raised a lot of eyebrows.

  It seems to me that it's all political - not theocratic.
• 

  WTWizard

  They use the flimsiest grounds to strip people of "privileges(??)". This makes the parents try to crack down harder, so their children will not leave the cancer. It also incites parents to use fear, shame, and guilt--and make sure their children are not prepared for life outside the cancer. Otherwise, they will be threatened.

  And it's a shame that people put such high value on "privileges(??)" in that organization. I don't think it's worth anything to hold onto a "privilege(??)" such as pious-sneering. All a pious-sneer does is commits to an amount of field circus that is greater than average--usually 50 or 70 hours per month. Does the Bible say that people are going to get destroyed unless they do that much? Is there any advantage in doing 50 hours a month instead of 1? Such as, higher probability of surviving, more favorable treatment in the new system, fewer trials and tribulations now, more favor in receiving blessings that actually enhance happiness now, and so on? I don't think so.

  Or, being a hounder. What do they get, besides a free pass to molest children in the guise of hounding calls? The ability to ruin lives? Usually, they get tons of work. They have to answer to the hounder-hounder, who has his own hounder to answer to. They don't get paid for it, yet they are responsible for everything that goes on in the congregation. You get publishers doing 1 or 2 hours a month, and the hounder-hounder is going after the hounders. Someone hasn't been to a boasting session in a few weeks, it's the hounders that get ripped. Someone is smoking behind the hounders' backs, it's their job to find them and bring them to "justice(??)". Plus they have to maintain expenses and make sure the accounts get bled whenever they accumulate 3,000 toilet papers in the account.

  Going to Beth Hell is another booby prize. There are more rules there than in prison or boot camp. You have to work, usually at tasks you hate doing. You are paired with a same-sex roommate. There are strict rules on what you can bring into your room, and cleanliness has to be perfect. You are forced to live on almost nothing, and if you break a rule, you are tossed out with nothing. If you get sick and cannot work, you are also tossed out with nothing. Even simple things like meals require lengthy discourses and prayers before--you could easily waste more than half the allotted eating time on that rubbish. And they call that a "privilege(??)".

  At least under the NDAA, they are not calling getting shipped to Guantanamo Bay a privilege--and I bet that it is no worse than going to Beth Hell.
• 

  cedars

  DesirousofChange - thanks for responding to my post. I appreciate it! I was referring to the following thread:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/members/private/220398/2/My-intro-hi

  I wouldn't say that EVERYTHING in the book is subjective, and please remember that the criteria for getting an elder removed on the basis of his family hinges on wrongdoing. The original poster referred to a son who ceases to go to the meetings. Arguably, this could be seen as LEADING to wrongdoing, but it is not technically wrongdoing in itself, at least not yet.

  I'm sure that you, like Billy, have personal experience in this matter. However, you are seemingly overlooking the fact that things may have changed since you were serving (assuming you were once an elder). The latest elders manual seems to indicate that the criteria for elder removal has been deliberately reduced, so as to improve elder retention. It would not surprise me at all if the Society is actively trying to cut back on elder deletion over petty matters. As I said, more elders = more control.

  I agree with Billy's view that if a body of elders "has it in" for their colleague, he will likely go regardless (of his own volition) due to external pressure. However, the actual legal framework for removing an elder only currently prescribes deletion on the grounds of the wrongdoing of the family member.

  OnTheWayOut - as much as I don't enjoy arguing over "minute details", I'm sure that you would agree that elders love doing precisely that. If I was an elder coming under pressure because my kid was no longer attending meetings, I would wave the paragraph I showed on the previous page of this thread infront of my "brothers", and respectfully remind them not to go beyond the things that are written. That's if it even came to that, because I don't think I was the only elder to serve on a body where the reviewing of qualifications was only done under VERY serious circumstances.

  I disagree entirely that a teenager no longer wishing to go to meetings would be viewed as having committed a wrongdoing that leads to DA. That's just not how it works, and I'm sure you realise that. If every elder with disbelieving children were deleted tomorrow, there would be a MASSIVE drop in numbers. Also, it's also not in the interests of elders to "assume" anything, remember the two witness rule? You also suggest that a child going to college classes would bring his father's credentials under review. That's so wide off the mark, that I'm not even sure where to start with debunking it. I went to college while my Dad was an elder, and nobody said a word to him.

  I understand that you think I am leaning on my own experience in this matter, but I think that to an extent, you are as well. Things have changed even since when I was serving less than 5 years ago. As I explained to DOC, it's no longer in the Society's interests to have elders being kicked out over petty matters. More elders = more control, I think the Society have finally figured this one out.

  Sorry to be so blunt, and I DO appreciate your opinions and perspective. I just think that in legalistic matters it's better to go by what's written (which is what the elders themselves would be doing) rather than relying on personal experience.

  Cedars
• 

  cedars

  repeat post
• 

  designs

  In the last KH I attended there were two successive Elders who served as POs who stepped down, one because of his son having problems and the other marriage problems.
• 

  Alfred

  Thanks everyone for your insight... seems the rules vary from congo to congo from what I'm reading here (even though the GB would probably prefer that everyone follow the elder's manual)...

  A little more info just came to light... last night I found out that my nephew actually moved out after a "conversation" with his elder father that went sour very quickly. After my nephew made it clear to his father that he had no intention of ever going back to the kingdom hall, that he will continue to date his non-JW girlfriend and that he is now 18, his father repeatedly suggested to him that it's probably a good idea for my nephew to get his own place as he was concerned that his qualifications might get called into question or his privileges removed. So there wasn't really a forceful push to get him out of the house per say, just your usual WT-style guilt-inducing mental manipulation (which seems to work every time).

  However, regardless of what the elder's book says about this scenario or what is put into actual practice, the bottom line here is that, in my brother-in-law's mind, he was basically presented with a choice... a) his son ; b) his privileges

  but his JW mentality led him to make the wrong choice, again.... very sickening indeed