No, not under any circumstances. According to their Flocking the Sheep book, if you agree to a judicial committee meeting you are acknowledging the congregation's authority over you.
Let me be clear: the Society has no flocking authority over me!
i certainly wouldn't.
and if the elders wanted to have a meeting with me, i would respectfully decline.
if the elders wanted to deal with you, would you talk with them?.
No, not under any circumstances. According to their Flocking the Sheep book, if you agree to a judicial committee meeting you are acknowledging the congregation's authority over you.
Let me be clear: the Society has no flocking authority over me!
i need to explain this to someone later and need a concice way of putting it.
f you had to give a "in a nutshell" definition of ttatt, what would you say or what main points would you use to define it ?.
( thanks in advance for your help ).
If you boil it down to its essence, you're left with: The Truthâ„¢ is not.
i found out that my husband has not only gone to the elders, but has been going to members of my family about me over a period of a few years.
this piece of news is just so depressing.
i've been wondering how my family knew i didn't go and thats why so many of them have becoming more and more distant.
cognac, I feel so bad for you. I too would view this as a betrayal. One of the main reasons my long-term marriage broke up was the total lack of marital confidentiality. Anything I said that could be interpreted as being critical of the Society and revealing doubt in any of its ever-changing teachings was eagerly passed on to the elders and, even worse in my mind, to my extended family and friends. It totally undermined my trust and confidence in her. And that led to the love and affection I once had for her dying also.
I'm not recommending any particular course of action. I wish you all the best, and I hope your husband will see the error of his ways and stop making you feel like you're constantly being spied upon. No one should have to live under such stress and disrespect. You have every right to remove yourself from that situation, if that's what you decide is best for you.
This is what happens when one puts loyalty to a religious organization above loyalty to one's mate. And it's just one more sign that the entire religion is little more than a cult.
what an amazing story.
to hear her describe it, it sounds exactly like the controlling, abusive environment many of us were raised in, except i didn't get to spend 2 years confined to an extravagent hotel in switzerland.
she escaped at age 22 after: dum-da-da-dum!
I wonder if the cult sacrificed rabbits. Hmmm...
a court in dubai has granted a divorce to a man who says his wife is possessed by spirits and refuses to have sex with him, reports suggest.. after persistently denying him sex, the woman finally told her husband to discuss the issue with her parents, the gulf news daily reports, without naming the couple.. they told the man that his wife was, in fact, possessed by a jinn, and that several religious scholars had unsuccessfully tried to exorcise the spirit, the paper says.. upon hearing this, the husband lodged a divorce case with the dubai sharia court.
his lawyer told a hearing: "the woman and her family cheated my client.
they should have been honest and clear about the fact that the wife was possessed by a jinn.
Actually, the persistent refusal to have sex with one's spouse without a verifiable physical or medical reason is grounds for divorce in most every country. Even JW's recognize this as grounds. Of course, the subsequent "freedom" to remarry is another matter.
so it's rumored started by one member that there is a new pioneer rank called basic pioneer, announced at annual meeting.
can anyone verify this is true?
everything else presented at the meeting has been verified except this.
Basic virgin... hmmm... is that the same as a technical virgin?
i've heard about his bombastic, overly patronising, cartoon-ish delivery before, but i'd never actually seen it...until now.
and i should add, this religion bears little to no relation to the one i left 6 years ago.. .
.
They can buy all the latest hi tech gadgets and toys and make a first class broadcast studio. But the message is still controlling and manipulative. And the delivery is downright creepy. Lett is NOT a good anchor or presenter. Very amateurish. I'm sure there are many JW's, including women, who would make much better presenters. But maybe it's better that they don't have first class on-screen talent. I wouldn't want the message to even SEEM more palatable and maybe suck in the unsuspecting.
This new venture is disturbing on so many levels.
http://digital.vpr.net/post/vermont-sisters-sue-jehovahs-witnesses-child-sex-abuse.
.
.
For what it's worth, I found that BOE letter Zalkin was talking about. It's dated March 14, 1997. It actually only required the congregations to forward detailed information on any "known" child molesters who either were serving or had served in any official capacity in that congregation. Those who had only been accused or who had not served in any appointed capacity did not have to be reported. Still, it could prove useful in making the Society produce whatever documentation they have on a particular individual.
http://digital.vpr.net/post/vermont-sisters-sue-jehovahs-witnesses-child-sex-abuse.
.
.
Wouldn't it interesting if wikileaks or anonymous hacked into the Society's records about child abuse accusations and made them public? I wonder if those records are even on their computer system. If they were smart, they would be in hard-copy (paper) form only. Did Barbara Anderson ever say whether those records were on computer or not when she was there?
Does anyone have a copy or know the exact date of the BOE letter Zalkin was talking about? It would be interesting to read exactly what was said. If anyone had one of the originals it could be the smoking gun that forces the Society to open its files.
so far my oldest niece and oldest sister cut me off.
i'm waiting for the goodbye texts from my other siblings.
my parents asured me they would never cut me off.
I hope you don't really consider yourself "living in sin." If you and your partner are committed to each other, you meet all the "Biblical" requirements to be considered married. Registering your marriage with the government is a man-made requirement, not a Biblical one. And don't let anyone tell you that it is a scriptural requirement under the catch-all "Give Caesar's things to Caesar." "Caesar" (at least in most civilized countries) does NOT require people to be married to each other to live together as a married couple does or even to have children together. Again, it's a mad-made rule. I'm not saying there aren't any advantages to an "official" marriage, because there certainly are. But not being in one does not equate to "living in sin."
Please submit 2¢ for this valuable "ruling."