New policy about appointing elders (page 3)

Poztate

Re: New policy about appointing elders

How about a REALLY new policy of appointing elders.

There could be a private VOTE of everyone in the cong.

Do you love me??? Do you hate me...Am I a P*R*I*C*K

I want to serve you...please let me....VOTE NOW..

peacefulpete

Interesting take XQs. If someone wants to do the search I believe it was a QFR in 96.

TonyT

"I guess the Holy Spirit isn't appointing elders anymore (tongue in cheek)" LoL ! That is an excellant point.

sinamongurl

minimus--

great call on that one

hee hee

sin

i know a brother in my area that has been divorced and remarried under scandel, (adultry ) and it has been 20+ yrs and they still won't let him serve as an elder b/c his first wife never remarried. he can't be an elder until she either dies or remarries. wow, that is holding a grudge.

what i do not understand is how they can be so strict on one thing, and allow so much other things. elders who abuse their kids and wife etc.

Lady lee is corect, it is all whitewash, they feel if it is omitted, it is not lying.

i think it is all very subjective. it depends on if the elders liked u. if they were your friends, i have noticed people get away with a lot. if they did not like u, or u were a "pot stirrer", then u might get reported for just about anything.

the original poster is correct, for them to be checking EVERY cong a person ever attended is different, but what is stop a bro from lying about that? like omitting a bad job reference. also, as far a the real world and people checking job references, usaully all they can tell us is dates they worked and if they are eligible for rehire. Most anything else leaves them subject to libel. could it be the same way in the congs? that is why many emplorers use background checks, these companies can find out stuff the employer can't legally. is the WT doing the same thing?

if it were true, it could be a benefit.

BluesBrother

Hmmm. Verry interesting ,,,

I guess it would mean that the body do not really trust the man that they are recommending. They are not sure that he is "Irreprehensible, a husband of one wife,moderate in habits,sound in mind, etc" ........I wonder what they ask. If it is a simple question such as "Has he ever been reproved,d/fd reinstated , or subject of any serious accusation?" then they would get a factual reply,...if anyone at the old congo can remember. ..No written records or details now due to Data Protection rules.

Min. is right about opinion and bad vibes following you around if they asked for a subjective opinion. My last body would have a field day with that, they never forgot an issue .

Child Abuse Register. I only know that at about 1997 we were asked to send the Society details of any known molestors, to make a central record. I wanted to add one teenage lad who had been "involved" with a young boy in the congo... The P.O. Overuled me saying that it was not aserious enough case... I wonder now?

Sunspot

**The P.O. Overuled me saying that it was not aserious enough case... I wonder now?

*I* wonder just "how serious" it has to BE to qualify as something that should be reported? I'd be curious about the criteria here!

New policy about appointing elders