Right Blondie.
Then I guess if he is still in good standing then we can assume he did just so.
I'll email a friend who knows the family. He's not attending ATM, so not sure if he's had any recent contact
Kelly Jarka Case
by Kenneson 44 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Stealth
Dagney;
There was no need for him to repent because he claimed that he did NOT murder his wife.
No claim of guilt! No two witnesses! That is good enough for the JWs.
He should be considered an member in good standing. I would not be surprised if he turns in time for witnessing in prison.
-
Dagney
You are right Stealth. Exactly.
Forget the murder, but not even the facts surrounding the case not "bringing repoach on Jah's name?" Really?
My friend did respond and say that he was not df.
-
Stealth
Any active JW lurkers out there? Think about this..
If you question some obscure end-times calculation that can't be proven in the bible, or convoluted generation teaching you will be disfellowshiped, cut-off from friends and family. You will be branded as a mentally diseased appostate.
on the other hand...
You can be a CONVICTED MURDERER and remain in good standing because there were not 2 witnesses to the cowardly act of bashing your wife's skull in while she as sleeping!
Do you think that just maybe it's a CULT?
-
Dagney
You can get DF'd for anything..."going against counsel" (one of my favorites).
A friend of mine, pioneer, struggled with a relationship with a nonJW. She went to the elders, (sigh), they told her not to see him of course. She did see him again, NO SEX mind you, the sister is still pure, but she went back for more counseling...they DF'd her for going against counsel. They wanted to make her an example, which they did..."never go to the elders for counseling" is the example that was produced. She carried a heavier burden because she was a young pioneer, looked up to in the congo...what would others say? Bringing reproach on Jah's name, blah blah blah...
Ok, so what's infuriating...is everything about Kelle Jarka brings "reproach on Jah's name" , and to the CCoJW. But no action in this case. It's wild.