Does anyone remember a district overseer Joe Slaiman?

by stuckinarut2 72 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  joe134cd

  I also believe that it was the way I composed and worded the document made it clear that I was not and had no intentions of being any threat to the organisation. The important thing is that we must act on the dictate of our conscience to enjoy peace of mind and happiness in life.

  Wow how different that is to the stories I heard. I'm glad after many years that I have had the record set straight.  This is what I heard.

  When you returned to Australia you were disfellowshiped for apostacy. You were now angry and bitter, and had tried to sue the society for loss of earnings.  But you lost in court. I remember once years ago looking on the net trying to substantiate this but found nothing.  You and you wife had separated.  I had no idea you were living in NZ. 

  
  

  
  
  
• 

  jysjw

  I don't think I am dispensing any gems of wisdom when I say that unlike governmental authority that can bring the full force of the law on an individual with real consequences, the religious authority, on the other hand, is only valid and effective through the voluntary acceptance by the individual. So it is authority by acceptance.

  Once the individual stops recognising the religious authority, its power over the individual is broken and rendered useless.

   So let them go ahead and take action in absentia. As long as one's conscience is clear, that he or she has taken the right course, then it's water of a duck's back. One cannot live in religious fear.
• 

  jysjw

  In response to some private emails, here is an excerpt from the second page of the document I left with the Society, which perhaps, in part, explains why no action was taken:

   "The Society or its teachings are not at issue here. In fact, they are altogether a non-issue and do not even get mentioned. This is because the teachings of ALL religious organisations are completely irrelevant in the context of this document, as my argument is exclusively against the notion that the Bible is "inspired", "unerring", "completely accurate" and having "the same authority as if written by God himself".

   Please understand that in writing this document, I do not seek to influence anyone from his or her belief. Therefore, this document is not to be misconstrued as "disassociation" from the congregation, since disassociation is an action taken by the individual against the congregation. Nor should be misconstrued as "apostasy". IT IS NOT. Please understand this:

   . I am NOT against the congregation

    I am NOT against the brothers

    I am NOT against the Society

  This document is simply my way of explaining how I came to my present conclusion ABOUT THE BIBLE. Since the Bible is not the prerogative of any one religious organisation, scrutinising or criticising it should in no way be misconstrued as an act of rebellion against any one particular organisation.

   In fact, putting the Bible ro the test is proper, even as the following quotations from The Watchtower and Awake indicate:

   ""w91 6/1 p3 Whether the Most High is the Bible's Author or not should clearly be seen upon a careful and unbiased examination of the book itself. g84 12/22 p9 We invite you to examine the Bible""

   That set the tone for entire document.
• 

  JW GoneBad

  Welcome to this forum Joe.  Do you plan on posting much?  Cause I know I speak for the whole lot of us here when I say it sure would be nice if you would on a regular basis.....and invite the Misses to do the same. :) :)
• 

  steve2

  Well expressed joe! Your very reasonable words were met with no acknowledgement by the Society and no apparent formal outcome. 

  That said, it is equally correct that the rumor-mill generated many baseless stories about your "disfellowshipped" status, your "bitter" and litigious frame of mind and the failed state of your marriage. Interestingly, the many , many positive posts here stand out because, to a last one, they are by those who, to one degree or another, hsve questioned the organization's claims and/or authority.

  Whilst part of me, takes my hat off to the Society regarding its not trying to take you through a more open, investigative approach, another part of me concludes that the Society has a vested interest in allowing "others" in the organization to speculate about what you did and are doing  - invariably treating you as one who is disfellowshipped by any other name. 
• 

  Max Divergent

  ... religious authority, on the other hand, is only valid and effective through the voluntary acceptance by the individual. So it is authority by acceptance.

  This is just how I reasoned, by coincidence in 1998, when I determined I would not allow myself to be subjected to disfellowshiping or disassociation. I would not subject myself to their processes after I determined I was neither a Witness nor a believer of any other kind, and all of that simply became irrelevant. I deflected the questions of two elders who came to visit me, and when they asked for a second meeting I said they were always welcome at my home, but I had nothing religious to discuss with them. That was the end of it.  

  Two or three years later I was visited by an elder-special pioneer and his special pioneer wife, he was given my new address by an elder. I told him I did not believe in the bible or God, and I recall his response. He said, after a pause and some evident contemplation, something close to 'Oh, so in that case you would find it impossible to accept the Faithful and Discreet Slave and the role of the Watchtower Society and the congregation?'. I agreed, and said nothing of the Society (mostly since I would have considered it rude to criticise what was obviously important to him). We went on to have a few pleasant enough conversations on both the bible and general topics, neither of us tried hard to convince the other of anything and there was no question of any kind of proceedings against me whatsoever. Like Joe said, I did not accept their authority and they did not try to impose it. 

  I have never criticised the Society in the company of Witness. That allows me to have occasional, quite normal contact with the few Witnesses I still know or come across form time-to-time, and we take one another's company for what it is.

  This third road out of the Witnesses is available, but is either not possible or not palatable for many departing Witnesses.   
• 

  stuckinarut2

  Joe,

  thanks for all of your comments that you have shared here with us all!

  I would be interested in how you first raised your thoughts with the "society", and how it was handled by the service department at Ingleburn bethel....

  Knowing those brothers as I do, I find it amazing that they didnt try and "make and example out of you" as you were a very well known and respected, and influential person in the Organization.

  
  
• 

  steve2

  I do see what Joe Slaiman is saying. A contrast with Ray Franz could help.

  Ray's biggest "mistake" (if that is the right word) was he was perceived by others in the organization as getting together with other "like-minded" brothers and sisters who were viewed as (at some level) critical of the Society - and even trying to bring about changes. In broad terms - details aside - even a perception of trying to influence others and/or mixing with "troublemakers", especially if you hold a position of responsibility, literally provokes an inquiry.

  Joe was never perceived to be mixing with others and/or with the (possible) intent of causing divisions.

  That said, Joe seems to have distanced himself from the organization so there likely was no need for the organization to formalize the departure.  But, at the risk of being seen as provocative, I get the impression that the organization effectively views Joe as at least disassociated anyway - and on that ground alone, he could or would be shunned. But the extent to which that has been carried out depends on locality and one's ability to disappear and avoid conflict. 

  Joe's letter to the Society reflects the likelihood thst his respectful leaving is effectively a form of disassociating - and it has not needed to be formalized becsuse of Joe's explicit disclosure thst he has nothing against any aspect of the organization. It is undeniably less difficult doing this when family/relative ties are not problematic.
• 

  Simon

  I think the problems hit when someone in the congregation decides that no one should just be allowed to leave. It's especially more likely if you have local family still in the JW.org as you then are likely to associate with them and they will undoubtedly see that as a threat.

  I don't know the exact timing from your story but it sounds like you weren't local to the area to have family and were moving out of the are so it was probably pointless for them to do anything (I'm pretty sure they don't have a global list of "no entry" names).
• 

  jwfacts

  Hi Joe, great to see your thread. You must have worked with my father Terry Grundy. He was a CO in WA for a while in the 90s.

  It is interesting when you say you were not disfellowshipped for writing about the Bible and that "The Society only takes action if you challenge the organisation or its doctrines."

  When I was reported to the CO, it was decided a judicial committee could not be held over my lack of belief in the Bibles inspiration because "Non-belief is not a judicial matter." CO-report-marked-s-303-form I was stunned to read that, it is so counter-intuitive. Surely if you don't believe in the Bible, you don't believe in the organisation. The more I burrowed into Watchtower doctrine, the more strange it all is.