Painful as it was to hear these men stubbornly refuse to entertain any logical thought, this just reaffirmed how right I was to get out of jwackoville.
Apostasy Trial - Part 2 - Satan is Using Google
by berrygerry 37 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
steve2
Fair enough OrphanCrow and others who responded to my point about 'if the shoe had been on the other foot' regarding secret videoing. Yes there indeed is a power imbalance in favor of the elders.
Surely, though, there is provision for the individual who faces a hearing to have a support person present if he so chooses so that another 'witness' is on hand.
On the topics of elders giving stock answers and unsatisfactory analogies, no surprises there - which was my very point. They cannot go beyond what the organization itself publishes. It would be impossible for the elders to make statements that are at odds with current organizational policy. Besides, they usually comprise men who do not show much evidence of an ability to fairly weight up arguments. They repeat what they've been taught.
I'm not defending their attitude and answers - just saying there are no surprises. And yes, their comparison of appointed elders who are pedophiles with Judas Iscariot is feeble indeed.
Surprises would be if they actually engaged in a meaningful exchange and took his questions seriously.
Given that there are 3 elders "against" one lone individual, proceedings are pretty humdrum. A tactless comment here and there - which grabs video headlines - but beyond that, pretty standard fare.
To be clear (in case other posters think I am defending the elders): They are full of bullsh*t.
-
OrphanCrow
steve2: Surely, though, there is provision for the individual who faces a hearing to have a support person present if he so chooses so that another 'witness' is on hand.
Actually, Steve, there isn't a provision such as you propose even though it would seem to be reasonable.
From pg 90 in Shepherd the Flock (secret elders' manual):
2..........The accused should be given opportunity
to respond to the testimony. If he wishes to present
witnesses to establish his innocence, the judicial
committee should allow them to give their testimony.
3. Hear only those witnesses who have relevant
testimony regarding the alleged wrongdoing.
Those who intend to testify only about the character
of the accused should not be allowed to do so. The
witnesses should not hear details and testimony of
other witnesses. Observers should not be present for
moral support. Recording devices should not be
allowed.(highlighting mine)
-
steve2
Thanks OrphanCrow, I had not realized that support persons were not allowed. That does change things. I concede that the individual could choose to secretly record proceedings out of concern that the elders have each other to "witness" what they say, but the individual does not. -
Watchtower-Free
The JW power structures is based on SECRECY.
-
berrygerry
This is hardly the shocking revelation it sets out to be. You have a bunch of elders doing their best to respond to and answer one man's questions. It sounds very heavy going for both parties but full credit to both parties for doing their best to frame their questions and answers in the most helpful way.
There ain't no angels and demons here -folks - although I should imagine if the elders dared to secretly video our friend's "trial", we'd be declaring them to be very deceptive and dishonest. Funny how we don't accuse our friend of that. Hmmmmmm.
A bit of a long-winded let down.
As was posted, you are NOT ALLOWED support, direction, information or advice of any kind.
You are not told who the accusers are, or what EVIDENCE they have.
Many have posted about elders lying during the hearing that they KNOW that you have done more, so if you confess, it will be easier for you. When, in fact, they were just trying to get you to confess to every sin in your life.
These 3 elders were actually MUCH MUCH better than any other JC that I have attended or been aware of.
However, it is still nothing short of tag-team wrestling, where the opponent is trapped in the other team's corner, and tag-teamed, not just by 2, but 3 men.
Often times, the accused has not even finished answering one question, when another elder jumps in with a completely off-track question.
I would love to have a psychologist's opinion of a JC proceeding, and how they would describe this process.
-
OrphanCrow
An amendment to my earlier post about no 'observers' being allowed at judicial hearings. I forgot about the patriarchal garbage that is spewed forth from the Tower.
After reading some more in the Flock book, I have unearthed this little nugget from pg 84:
11. If the accused is a married sister, it is best
to have her believing husband present for the hearing.
He is her head, and his efforts to restore her and
direct her can be very helpful. (1 Cor. 11:3) If unusual
circumstances are involved or the elders feel it would
be best not to invite the husband because of their
concerns for the safety of the wife, the elders should
call the branch office.
12. If the accused is a married brother, his
wife would normally not attend the hearing. However,
if the husband wants his wife to be present, she
may attend a portion of the hearing. The judicial
committee should maintain confidentiality.
So, if you are a lowly woman who needs 'headship' from a believing mate, he should attend the hearing. However, the wording suggests that the husband is there to help 'discipline' her rather than support her.Not so if you are a man with a wife. The rules are different depending on the type of genital equipment you were born with.
-
problemaddict 2
The thing is....when we are all at the end of our rope we are not at our best. These kind of meetings are usually being had with people beaten, damaged, and broken to a certain extent.
This guy was a bit all over the place, but what else could he do? His wife left him, his friends left him, he was about to be cut off from the only social structure he ever knew. These elders weren't as bad as most. Except maybe the "where does google come from....if you really think about it" guy.
The questions are there to attempt to just throw you into a box. Don't believe in God? then lets just do this. But that isn't what this is about. This is about someone being accused of apostasy, for sharing with his wife things he learned to be true, that caused him to question the religion of his youth. The way to go here is to walk in and say, why am i being accused of apostasy? I'm not an apostate....are we done here? And then to find the logical inconsistencies.
But.....we all suffer to leave in on form or another. We are bloodied by the time we get courage to go, and even tape a meeting. I think this guy did as good as anyone could do. I certainly did not have the courage to tape any of my meetings (non-judicial). So kudos. One day i would really like to see someone go in there with full loads, and a plan. Maybe I can still do it some day.
-
-
William Penwell
Yeah here we go they got him when he admitted that he didn't believe that Satan was behind everything that is bad. Typical kangaroo court. The elders are only there to get enough s*it so they can DF him. I do not recognize their authority, they can do what ever they like.
Oh yeah I want to add that when he said he read the bible from cover to cover, well this is a no no. I recall when I tried to just read to bible on my own, my ex told me that i wasn't supposed to read it on my own without help from WT study aids/publications.
