based on your experience of judicial committees, how would you advise someone who is due to meet with the elders and has asked for the best way to avoid being disfellowshipped?
is denying everything ever a successful strategy?
does addressing a letter to the elders threatening legal action if they disfellowship ever work?
Our PO used to wonder if true repentance was being shown if the offence had been discovered as opposed to being confessed to voluntarily.
Then the question was, "Is the person repentant for their sin or are they just sorry that they've been found out?"
from the secret elders' book which states that the list "of course" is "not comprehensive".
nevertheless here are the acts that they deem worthy of specifying as being possible grounds for chucking people out:.
murdermanslaughter such as killing someone while breaking traffic lawsattempting suicidesexual intercourse with someone other than your spouseanal sex with someone other than your spouseoral sex with someone other than your spousesexual stimulation of the genitals of someone other than your spousedelay in reporting a rape?
Just confirming - is everything on that list really in the elder's manual?
another young couple has bit the dust, in our congregation.
that's close to 20.. we'll probably hear a special needs talk, and of course the couple will be counselled to get back together, and they are not scripturally free to marry.. comments will be made that it's is the fault of the younger ones, today.
apparently younger ones are selfish, but, are they?.
Contributing factors:
Lack of choice of a partner - worldwide JW's account for less than half of 1 percent of the population.
Marrying way too young - It's the only way to have sex without being disfellowshipped.
Required submission of women - It's not natural and restricts women from expressing themselves fully.
Restricted income - A witness upbringing means that for most JW's the lack of education will mean poor work prospects and consequently a low income.
i believe most witnesses believe that there is nothing new in their religion....would you agree with them?.
This might make you smile..
i believe most witnesses believe that there is nothing new in their religion....would you agree with them?.
Say what you like about JW's, there did used to be some real characters out there. They're all gone. Individuality has been quashed as being undesirable.
My first public talk had suggested notes supplied by the WT of just half of a page, the rest of what was presented was down to me. Now public talks are pretty well just a set reading.
The perception of the public re JW's has also changed as they've become ever-more media conscious. WT statements to the press are now predictable soundbites as the WT tries damage limitation after the exposes of ex's.
it's a well known phenomenon i've observed from jwn, my own cos. a new co we had once who was fresh from being a normal elder and after a couple of visits he said, "well i've finally become a true co...i now have food intolerances.".
i mean, only once did my husband and i ever have a co around for dinner and they couldn't eat this, he couldn't eat that, she couldn't eat this...it was so hard to cook something with none of the zillions of things they were 'allergic' to.. and then after all that the wife couldn't come anyway because she had a naturopath appointment or something.. why do all co's seem to have weird dietary problems?.
.
One CO explained to us that almost every meal they had been presented with was almost a mini-banquet, so filling that they would be unable to continue with whatever it was that CO's went on to do after eating. For that reason they would often stipulate ahead of their visit what kind of food they required.
the policy set by pastor russell concerning disfellowship procedure wasn't changed until 1944?.
what was disfellowship policy?.
russell had recommended in a 1904 publication that each separate congregation (remember there was no organization back then!
According to the London bethel, shunning is a personal matter for each individual to decide for himself.
During the hoo-hah re ex's being described as "mentally diseased", the Daily Telegraph printed this quote from a spokesman at the London bethel:
Rick Fenton, a church spokesman, defended the passages, saying ostracisation was "a personal matter for each individual to decide for himself".
"Any one of Jehovah's Witnesses is free to express their feelings and to ask questions," he said. "If a person changes their mind about Bible-based teachings they once held dear, we recognise their right to leave."
i like learning about whats going on in the world.
but i tire of having to scan news outlets like npr, cnn and fox in order to figure out reality.
what news organization(s) do you use to learn about whats going on in the world?
I like Sky News.
The BBC has become a mouthpiece for the Politically Correct Liberal hegemony that speaks mainly for the vociferous minorities running our country, and as such is positively tiresome to view.
there are many silly doctines and viewpoints.. one of the strangest ones is the blood doctrine.. why anyone could logically accept this belief is beyond reason..
Their most absurd belief is that they're witnesses for Jehovah. Jehovah must be really p***** off with a bunch of priggish losers who preach that he's going to destroy everyone. Great, let's all worship this God of love! In terms of being public relations ambassadors for Jehovah, they're an unmitigated disaster. People don't much like Jehovah because of THEM.
Like the people say: "I have no problem with Jehovah but his fan club are a pain in the a*se!"
trayvon/zimmerman....it's all about race....that's what some people keep saying.
you criticize the president, and you are against blacks.
you talk about illegal aliens and you hate mexicans.
You express an opinion about anything and someone will hang a label on you. If you're not an ist you're a follower of an ism. Everyone cheers for diversity as long as you're of the same opinion - which isn't diversity at all.
