Hello. I'm not a witness myself, but I used this site a couple of weeks back to try a trace my sister-in-law (who I knew was a witness).
I was actually trying to trace my husbands natural father( whom he has never met)
My enquiries had led me to discover that my sister-in-law has in her possession, the only known photo in existence of my husbands father and a previous address for him (although as she is only a half sister to my husband, she has no connection whatsoever with this man and no need of these items)
Your people were very, very kind in helping me locate her, for which I'm very grateful, however, for reasons best known to herself, she is refusing to let us have access to the items we need to help us. This seems a very uncharitable attitude.I know there had been no contact between my husband and his sister for many years, but what does your religion say about forgiveness? How would your religion regard someone who deliberately witholds information which could lead to someone finding their real father? I'm interested to know?
Help me out with info about your religion
by Barbara 4 Replies latest jw friends
-
Barbara
-
RedhorseWoman
Interesting situation, and very sad. I'm sorry that your sister-in-law is being so unreasonable.
To be perfectly honest, I don't know of any specific JW belief that would pertain to someone's acting like an inconsiderate jerk. It's possible that an elder in her congregation might be willing to speak with her in an attempt to encourage her to be more reasonable, but that would be a personal decision on his part. I know of no "rules" to deal with this type of situation.
-
SlayerLayer
First let me say good luck to you on your search. My ex-wife had never met her natural father either. One night I surprised her with my search. I had found him and talked with him, earlier that night, and he called her to surprise her. A year later he passed away. We were fortunate to have the little time that we did have.
Probably the way I would handle this situation, is to contact one of the elders in the congregation. Let them know that this attitude is seriously making you question the sincerety of Jehovah's Witnesses. They are always quick to jump on anyone that brings reproach to their organization. I would play that card untill they speak to this woman. I can't promise that this will work, but I would definately give it a try. Just let them know that because of this, you will think twice before ever letting a JW even close to your door.
The congregation that I used to attend was made up of mostly nosey busy bodies, and would've loved something like this.
Good luck to you.
SlayerLayer---God was my co-pilot, but we crashed in the snowy mountains and I had to eat him.
-
mustang
"I know there had been no contact between my husband and his sister for many years, but what does your religion say about forgiveness?"
What is the reason for the non-contact? If you don't care to disclose it, that is fine. But, the "non-contact" is a sign of 'shunning', which would follow an OFFICIAL DISFELLOWSHIPPING or DISASSOCIATION or an UNOFFICIAL version of the same. These people are always so zealous that they will take it upon themselves to 'shun' (totally avoid, break off ALL contact) someone whose conduct is suspect. Suspect means nonconformance with the norms expected of a JW.
This could be based on either your husbands conduct or that of his father. It is important to know the last status of their standing with these people.
Once you know that status, the likely reason for this attitude will be obvious to those on this board. As for you, it will require someone explaining it to you. And be prepared for very serious culture shock.
As for forgiveness, that may not be forthcoming. That all depends on what is prompting the 'shunning'. It is up to the 'shunned one' to 'do penance' or whatever is required to be reinstated.
Do I approve of this tortuous state of affairs? Not really. There is a reason for this, and a chain of logic that is used to justify this doubtful practice. However, the administration of this nonsense is so full of mistakes that it is pathetic. I doubt that one-quarter of all cases are justifiable. Further, the recourse for a miscarriage of justice simply does not work. This practice is truly too onerous to be trusted to mere men. These people have taken on the role of God in administering justice.
"Onerous"? A term associated with the legal system. Legal? Yes, the courts of the land have upheld this practice.
Mustang
Disclaimer: nothing that I write or utter is to be considered legal advice. Consult proper counsel for such matters.
Further, all that I write or utter, is considered to be protected by religious freedom under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as the "free exercise", as well as "freedom of speech" clauses.
-
mustang
BARBARA,
I apologize if what I stated is strongly worded. I am merely stating the facts. I do not know an easy way to break this to anyone.
Please ask whatever questions you feel necessary. There are many very supportive people on this board. Many have faced similar dilemmas to yours. Yours does seem like a unique permutation and is certainly not often seen.
Welcome to the board; don't let the difficulty of the task deter you. It will pass and there will be better times. I will help if you wish.
Mustang