by jehovaxx 45 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
The new procedure sends out the clear message that the GB wants elders to avoid disfellowshipping people at all costs.
Got it in one Slimboy
it sounds like hardly anyone will ever be dfed and easy for those who have to come back.
so not much consequences for going against direction
yay
all they have to do is say they want to appeal and that they are sorry and that’s it
This sounds like PR spin rather than an actual change. Possibly having more meetings before an initial decision that can be appealed does not actually sound like a change to the appeal process itself.
And that’s if the elders haven’t decided the person has ‘disassociated by their actions’, in which case there is no right of appeal anyway. There has been no stated change to the policy around disassociation.
does not actually sound like a change to the appeal process itself.
There has definitely been a change to the appeals process there is no point standing there saying there hasn’t.
Slim explained it well when he said perhaps this is the most significant change, I suggest you read his post again
The change to the appeal procedure is pretty significant. In fact maybe it’s the most significant change when you think about it. Because in the past an appeal committee was only allowed to overturn the decision if they were convinced that the original committee had been wrong about the person not being repentant at the original judicial committee. In other words it was not good enough if the person had become repentant meantime, the only function of the appeal committee was to assess whether the original judgement had been correct on the day, not to make a new judgement in light of any new expressions of repentance. In practice it has been reported that appeals very rarely overturned the original decision, and only in cases that were so clearly wrong or, more likely, damaging to the organisation in some way if processed that the circuit overseer or branch got involved to reverse the decision.
The new procedure sends out the clear message that the GB wants elders to avoid disfellowshipping people at all costs. Because now the appeal committee is allowed to reassess the repentance of the person at the second committee and, reading between the lines, encouraged to actively look for signs of repentance in order to avoid disfellowshipping, which is as different to the old appeal procedure as you could imagine.
jehovaxx:
There has definitely been a change to the appeals process there is no point standing there saying there hasn’t.
Maybe there has. Fairly certain the actual appeals process isn't just "all they have to do is say they want to appeal and that they are sorry and that’s it".
The point is, as previously stated:
Slim's post doesn't even cover whatever is actually different with the appeals process, it's explicitly "reading between the lines". It just outlines that the elders might try a bit harder to get the person to say they're sorry before the decision reached by the first round of meetings. None of it indicates any actual change to the appeals process at all. And still nothing at all about whether anything is different at all if the elders decide someone has 'disassociated'.And what good is it if a circuit overseer tells elders there are some other provisions if regular members aren’t told about them?
The full information about the appeals process in the letter sent out is:
25. What if a wrongdoer gives evidence of genuine repentance only when he meets with the appeal committee? If both the original committee and the appeal committee agree that a wrongdoer is genuinely repentant when he meets with the appeal committee, he may remain in the congregation. This adjusts what is stated in the Shepherd book, chapter 17, paragraph 7, point 2. The appeal committee would meet only one time with the individual.There is no indication of any other change to the appeals process itself at all. Still must be a written letter within 7 days per the information provided from Watch Tower. Everything else in chapter 17 of the Shepherd book about appeals is unchanged.
The change is the appeal committee is allowed to arrive at the their own decision about the repentance of the individual based on their own assessment, not merely review the earlier decision of the original committee. This seems like a major change, but like everything else about these announcements we’ll need to see how it pans out in practice.
There is no indication of any other change to the appeals process itself at all
No that is wrong. There has been a change.
The new direction says at the appeal of the person says they are repentant ie they are sorry and they won’t do it again that is enough. It will overturn anything else any other elders say.
The brother I know from Chelmsford Bethel told me there is a series of WTowers coming out about these changes and a new Elders book in the works. I think he has some info about what will be in these.
The largest change could be summed up by saying in the past it was upto what the elders thought about if they were repentant
now it’s what they say
The largest change could be summed up by saying in the past it was upto what the elders thought about if they were repentant
now it’s what they say.
The more I think about not only what the new s-395 says, but the tone and the implications, the “reading between the lines” if you will…
I think that’s what the WTS has in mind. They appear to trying to make it so that being disfellowshipped almost never occurs.
The tone and wording of the form is just about the polar opposite of what the current procedure in the elder manual is.
The WTS is starting a transition into [something else]. They are rolling out these changes quickly, but with just enough restraint so as not to give “the vapors” to long-timers.
We should not be too carried away by all this. The rules still apply and they are not going to be naive enough to accept repeated sins and declarations of repentance. Will it really be enough to mumble the word “ ok I’m sorry “ to be believed repentant? I doubt it.
The change to the appeal committee is relevant but in practice the appeals that I seen turned over were in fact the case of the subject expressing their repentance better and in a different way at the appeal.
The 3 month reinstating is a bit of farce . They remove a “wicked “ man in January and he is not wicked by April?
All in all , it is a mess. And what with changes to the standards on dress and grooming , not long after the previous changes…. People are bamboozled.
jehovaxx:
The new direction says at the appeal of the person says they are repentant ie they are sorry and they won’t do it again that is enough. It will overturn anything else any other elders say.
You’re trying to make this all sound very certain. And maybe you’re completely right. But it was well demonstrated at the Australia Royal Commission that JW policies and how they are interpreted and enforced are much more disorganised than you suggest. Some circuit overseer’s interpretation presented second hand by anonymous person online doesn’t trump what the published material states. But time will tell.
FFGhost: They appear to trying to make it so that being disfellowshipped almost never occurs.
That sounds right. By finding ways to make DF'ing less onerous, they might be starting on the path to only doing it in the most extreme circumstances, and instead offering 'counsel' to those who commit wrongdoing. Based on what they kept repeating, it looks like apostasy, child abuse, and scheming to end a marriage (that still cracks me up) are the sins that will still end in DF.
