Elders removed in Northern PA. Congregation (page 6)

ToesUp

Just verified. Asbury Woods Congregation, Erie, PA.

Gentledawn

Toward the end of his talk he stated that 2 - 3 elders and their families would be moving from neighboring halls to their kingdom hall to help out and will begin to serve on the elder body.

Asbury Heights (Laurel Hills) was the congo sharing the kingdom hall with Asbury Woods. Perhaps the elders will be brought from further out, rather than using ones from a sister congregation like that? Doubtful that they'd use any from that close (literally right next door), imo.

Just verified. Asbury Woods Congregation, Erie, PA.

Like someone stated earlier, proof and/or some sort of confirmation would be nice.

Asbury Woods/Forest Hills. They had a reputation for coldness, aloofness, and a touch of affluence. Alot of em were educated. It may be money. It might be attitude. For a hall with 2 congregations, they never covered their territories and usually had Girard and other outliers coming in temporarily to cover things within a given time span.

They did have another elder shake up nearly 2 decades ago. I'm not privy to all the details, but they "lost" most of their elders back then, too.

Oh, and they had absolutely NO problem with being SOBs (verbal abuse, DFs, etc), especially toward women. And it did not matter one wit if they actually knew you, or if it happened right in the middle of the auditorium after a meeting. Granted, it was only a handful of the Enforcers who were mean-spirited and belligerent like that, but none of the others ever stepped up to oppose em when any of it took place.

Ha.

And why did they sell their old Kingdom hall again and built the new one on Asbury road? Ya know, the old one on Rt 832 that is now a functional funeral home? Because the reasons given were that the building was unsound, unfixable, or some such crap. Yup. That's why it's still standing and in use today.

So glad to be out of that cult as a whole. Lies, lies, and more lies.

Doubting Bro

my 2 cents is to agree with sir & morpheus. There may have been a pattern of being lenient on JC cases and something set the CO off. Sometimes these things are for reasons that most of us would agree with (ie bad elders who are out of control) but the indecisive talk tells me that they were showing too much "mercy".

I really don't think it's cash as a few have mentioned that would have said they were disobedient, not indecisive.

Any additional info? It's always interesting when entire BOEs get removed.

Gentledawn

"indecisive" could be coded language (see: weasel words) for not sending in any additional monies that the Society feels entitled to. If the CO were to stand at the podium, penis in hand, and start telling the congregation that the elder body was trying to withhold/keep some of their money (the congregation money that rightfully belongs to them) , then that might wake up more than a handful of audience members who are in the know.

And stating it like that ("indecisive") makes it sound like the elders were not moving as they should, when the reality could be that they never had any intention to send anything extra from the accounts.

Of course, this is all speculation.

sowhatnow

well, if the local elders or C.o would simpy state openly to the congregation whats going on there wouldnt be any gossip huh? After all the congregation belongs to everybody, why dont they all have a right to know??

whats the bible say ? take the matter to the CONGREGATION, and let everyone hear it out. no more guessing and judging wrongly.

no more secrets....

Balaamsass2

I remember cases with the same phrase used by the C.O., for Elders who covered up for elder friends.

1: A popular Elder (PO)was not removed quickly for public spousal and child abuse. A Majority on the body let it continue for months.

2: Another case a popular Elder allowed his inactive child use of the Hall for a wedding. He and the body members who supported it were removed by the C.O.

Ignoranceisbliss

This is a very interesting situation. I am curious if it is just coincidence that it was the first visit after the change that gave the CO the authority to appoint and remove elders. If I understand correctly before this change it would be much harder to remove elders. My dad always said that if they tried to remove him that he would appeal it. That would be if the other elders were going after him. I'm not sure how that would work but I believe a letter would be sent to bethel. Now it's all different. The CO says, and so it is. Perhaps the CO had an issue with these elders for a while.

DesirousOfChange

2: Another case a popular Elder allowed his inactive child use of the Hall for a wedding. He and the body members who supported it were removed by the C.O.

Another possiblity could be if those elders & families all attended the wedding of a JW to an "unbeliever". That could be seen as giving support to someone who is failing to "marry only in the Lord".

Doc

_Morpheus

@Ignorance, let me clarify:

the new arrangment changes mostly the way elders are appointed NOT deleted. Instead of getting a CO to sign off and then send it to bethel for approval, the CO is now the final word.

in the case if a deletion the CO was always involved and he COULD now be the final word, but not nessarily. The elder can still appeal although the appeal dosent go directly to the branch. If an elder is ok with removal or is stepping down then the CO can finish the matter immediatly.

it does raise an interesting point on this situation.... Were they all ok with being removed...? Likely not. I wonder if this sitution had been broight to the CO's attention and he investigated, told them they were being removed, delt with appeals/any blow back from the branch and then scheduled a visit to handle it..... Ir did he just go gun slinger and handle it and say screw procedure...

Ignoranceisbliss

Morpheus. Thanks for the clarification. I thought it changed deletions and appointments.

Elders removed in Northern PA. Congregation

Share this