They kind of already reported on some of it. But since I did get to attend, so let me see if I can remember some of the highlights. The one thing I do remember a lot was on the whole appeal and re-admittance process for DF'd people. Basically, for those trying to come back, it felt like they made it harder for them, since they made everyone question whether or not 6 months out was really enough time for DF'd people. The videos that they showed, using the same people from the previously leaked judicial committee video, made it clear that, just because someone is out 6 months doesn't mean they should be allowed back right away. Even though the video showed the DF'd guy having made visible changes (from beard to no beard, regular meeting attendance, etc.), it wasn't enough for him to come back based on the original elders who DF'd him. Perhaps I should clarify that the scenario they showed had the DF'd person move away from his original congregation and establish himself in a different congregation, far away from his original. So even though he was asking to come back in his new congregation, the BOE from his new congregation, although viewing him as favorable to re-admit, still had to send a letter to the DF'd person's original judicial committee who took the DF'ing decision. After carefully reviewing the matter on their own, the original BOE decided that not enough time had passed to re-admit him, based on all the stuff he did to originally get DF'd. So the message received from the video was basically to think twice before re-admitting someone. As if it wasn't already a tough enough process.
The video they showed before this one, which I probably should've covered first, was on the appeal process when someone disagrees with the decision to DF. AGain, they used the same people from the original video, with the DF'd person trying to appeal the decision, and how it is a different judicial committee that takes up the matter with the original judicial committee members present. The point of this video was to show how, even though the DF'd person seemed to show repentance from what he did (long-term fornication), the decision was to uphold the original DF'ing decision. The point being that, even if he was now repentant, he didn't show that same repentance in the original judicial committee hearing, and so the appeal committee had no choice but to uphold the original judicial committee's decision to DF him.
Those were the "highlights" for me. Basically, to uphold and value our "organizational procedures", which really don't have a true biblical basis, even though they throw out scriptures here and there to give the illusion of biblical support. Anyway, that's all I remember off the top of my head. Maybe someone else who was there can add other "highlights". The only other thing I remember was the video on recommending brothers for MS or Elder privileges. In a nutshell, don't recommend brothers just because you think they "seem" like good candidates. You have to really scrutinize them, examine how much time they put in for service, for example, and what kind of people they are before recommending them.
Which reminds me now of another thing they spent some time on, which is all the changes to the Elder book on the process for recommending brothers for higher privileges. It was clear now that, at least on paper, the CO is now the only one with the authority to approve or not approve naming someone an MS or elder. It is quite evident now that the branch office has little to no say on the matter. I think they are trying to distance themselves from this process for liability purposes, as in, out of WT lawyer recommendations. I get the feeling that they are trying to distance the GB from MS or Elder appointments, now that all these child abuse cases are coming out of the woodwork. This way, in the future, they can truly say they are not responsible for an MS or Elder who might have abused someone. Unfortunately, the one they will end up pointing the blame at will be the CO's who approved the recommendations. Kind of sad, really.
