Greetings Amazing.
I have been gone all day long on an exhausting one day round trip business meeting.
Your new post pretty much summed up the frustrations in attempting to arrive at a correct conclusion when dealing with complex and multi-faceted situations.
However, lets go back to what you said originally shall we?
In the original post that you linked to this new one you stated:
Here is what our body of Elders concluded, and what another Body of Elders concluded when I asked them the same question:
Yes, the Elders "can" re-Disfellowship a person who stops attending Meetings and failing to go out in Service shortly after reinstatement. The reason is that they can say that the reinstated person is "lacking works that befit repentance"
Having attended many KM schools and also having worn out many pens taking copious notes at such, you might say that I am familiar with the Society's "oral tradition". The point is however, the "oral tradition" and even the written tradition is handed down via the avenues you described, FROM THE SOCIETY.
So in going back to your words above, in what way does a few elders consensus constitute "oral tradition"?
Did you hear this at a KM school, CO's visit, or perhaps at one of the supplementary elder's meetings at an assembly, all of these being the main way that the SOCIETY'S oral tradition is handed down? Or maybe you called the service desk? Please enlighten us.
Let me ask you another question,
Do you still feel that restrictions on newly reinstated persons are placed because they still need to show "works that befit repentance"?
If you will recall, not one former elder agreed with your assertations.
And I might add (gathering from some of the past elders histories posted here) they had quite a combined number of years serving as such.
So what say ye, my man?
I will not be able to respond until this weekend.
Dino
Edited by - Dino on 17 September 2002 21:21:10
Edited by - Dino on 17 September 2002 21:35:19
