by James Jackson 79 Replies latest jw experiences
James,
THANK you for sharing that. Not surprising, but oh how informative. It sounds like your friends knew instinctively that they were incorrect. You mentioned nothing in their elders book abotu being DF'd for having a meal with one already DF'd.....but was there an elders book back in the 80's? I don't recall the 80's incarnation of an elders book.
It is also interesting, that they chose such young ones, who OBVIOUSLY would do whatever they were told.
Very calculated.
Of course they were instructed that way, they wanted him out and would have stopped at nothing to do so. It it was a foregone conclusion that he was to be gone, then they would have been no need for anyone 'experienced' to do the JC.
.
I've read somewhere where evil men used similar tactics to take down a righteous man who didn't agree with them. Where did I read that. Oh yeah I remember now. It was in the Bible when the Pharisees took Jesus down.
They were puppets...who were the instigators?
Yes, most elders do not explain doctrains at JC meetings in fear of error. They make sure they have a WT article ready for the receiver to read during reinstatement meetings.
Elders make promises and slip up on deceptions and lies.
When they df someone they quote a scripture and give the judgement then go home!
Ray Franze would already know and expect the out come where as some are devastated.
In twenty years of knowing this elder,how many delibrate lies did you catch? How many worship this elder from afar?
As far as that scripture it is a given that anyone can pick and choose who to eat with. Rutherford was a greedy drunk and a railer! Yet many made him into a mini god which is idolatry. KH are pyramids schemes the same thing goes on in KH,elders are demi gods.
Problemaddict: but was there an elders book back in the 80's? I don't recall the 80's incarnation of an elders book.
There was actually no Book; but 3 Brochere types that Elders used until the Society condensed them into 1 book in the early 90's.
That must be common use, I had to do the same thing while presiding a committee to handle the case of a missionary, married, who had no regret, and fornicated. The BC called me the sunday morning at the missionary-home and told me to do everything possible not to disfellowship her as we were gaining such a good name in that town.
Everyone who has dealt with these brothers know you better did what you were told.
James, thank you, but surely this is Old Light.
All those years ago it was quite evident how this was orchestrated.
From pp 366, 368 & 376 of "Crisis of Conscience":
They seemed to be in an enormous hurry, a “rush to
judgment.” I do not personally think that this was of their own initiative.
As the chairman of the committee later acknowledged, they
were in communication with the Society’s representative, Circuit
Overseer Wesley Benner. Many of their expressions and attitudes
reflected remarkably those made by him in my home. He, in turn, was
almost certainly in touch with the Service Department of the Brooklyn
headquarters, and that department was—beyond any doubt—in
communication with the Governing Body....
I asked if they would not feel more confident if they had
confirmation of their viewpoint from the Governing Body? He repeated
that ‘they had to go by what was published,’ and that, anyway ‘they
had called Brooklyn on the matter.’ This was the first I had heard anything
about such a call. Evidently that was why, when I spoke to the
committee chairman, Elder French, on the phone two days earlier he
had said that the body of elders “did not feel it was necessary” to wait
for the Governing Body to answer my letter! They followed the same
secretive course followed earlier by the Chairman’s Committee and
apparently did not feel any need whatsoever to let me know that they
had already communicated by telephone with the Brooklyn headquarters.
I asked if they spoke with someone on the Governing Body. The
answer was, No, that they talked with a member of the Service Department.
What had they been told? French said they were told,
“Nothing has changed and you can go ahead.”...
Based upon my past experience on the Governing Body of Jehovah’s
Witnesses, upon the conduct of its Chairman’s Committee during the
spring of 1980, and also upon the material published from that time
until the present, my personal belief is that it was considered
“advantageous” that I be disfellowshiped so as to eliminate what
they considered a “threat.”
Even the still-deluded author thereof had grasped that it was all pre-ordained and fixed.
No admission from the Spiritual Filth concerned was needed.
__
Focus
("Anti- WTS Crime" Class)
Without giving details about oneself, anyone can come forth with juicy stories supposedly coming from hot-shots he "knows". Tell a story, and the gullible crowd will devour it all, as long as it supports their preconcieved ideas.
It might seem churlish, but writing that you had a conversation with two of the key players is easy to do. But you must know that the internet is a gravy train for all manner of claims and counterclaims - and under the cloak of anonymity, you can claim pretty much anything. Besides, as Focus said, Ray himself knew his JC was virtually pre-determined by the then governing body. Have you got any evidence that you had the conversation? If not we need to be wary of your claimed first person account.
JJ are you able to provide a description of the two men - Theotis French and Ron Dibble?
