If you don't believe that the Elders™ have any Authority™ over you, then why even bother with a letter?
Do you write a letter to the school yard bully who took your lunch money too?
Posts by Scully
-
84QUITTING QUIETLY here is the Canadian version of the document
by gone for good ina while back, i suggested that an easy, quick, quiet exit with the signing and dating of a concise and irrefutable document would spur faders and pimos to preempt the elders' interference by quitting quietly first , before a fade or a confrontation.
here is the document .
https://1drv.ms/w/s!avoitfxyvyqghq3gbmkhfyqp_jqp?e=8bttg1.
-
-
-
17
Adultery, Divorce, Remarry
by azl0058 inmy brother (who is a witness) has been married for 8 years.
he and his wife (also a witness) got married young, but he never really tried in the marriage, but she also lost his trust early on.
he says that it was his fault though because he pushed her away.. anyways, he met this new girl (not a witness) and told his wife that he wanted to separate.
-
-
Scully
Cheating to get out of an unhappy marriage isn't the best choice, but in JW-land it is an option. Doesn't the bible say that to look at another person in a lustful way is having already committed adultery in one's heart anyway??
WT rules seemed to have relaxed a bit in the 26 years since I left. At one time, adultery only freed the innocent spouse to remarry Scripturally™. The spouse who committed adultery was expected to return to the marriage *if* the innocent spouse was willing to forgive them. But to use adultery as a weapon to deliberately end the marriage and move on to another partner, and expect to be Reinstated™ and bring their new partner into The Truth™... well that's just mind boggling to me, for the simple reason that so much deceit and underhandedness has gone into the affair. But that's WTs fault too: they are the ones who claim that the *only* legitimate grounds for a Scriptural Divorce™ is adultery, and they also imply that the adulterer(s) are not at liberty to seek the divorce - that is up to the wronged spouse.
WT may as well accept the fact that people divorce for a variety of reasons, and there is no sense in expecting two miserable people to stay with each other until one of them dies. Let them move on and try to find some happiness. Life is too damn short.
-
16
COVID-19 - Would It Work to Allow People to Sign Away Rights for Treatment Like JW's Do for Blood?
by RubaDub inpeople want to get back to work, back to "normal" in many cases (whatever normal now means).
even trump is encouraging protesters in 3 states.. but with the covid-19 thing, this is not just a matter of a person taking a risk, as a person may do who smokes, takes illegal drugs or in other ways lives an unhealthy lifestyle.
in general, most (not all, since cost of insurance and public hospitals may be involved), but generally you are not putting the lives of others at risk.
-
-
Scully
Any adult of sound mind can refuse medical treatment for themselves. Hospitals have forms for this type of thing. However, in the case of COVID-19, I would hope refusal of treatment would be accompanied by strict quarantine orders to not leave their home, or being segregated with other idiots, away from the rest of us who want to be safe for the benefit of our loved ones and other people at risk.
-
6
Not JW related, but I've published a novel
by JeffT init's an alternate history called "1910: war in the pacific," about a (mostly naval) war between the united states and japan after the japanese buy alaska from the russians it's now on sale on amazon in both print and kindle formats.
it grew out of a short story i wrote a number of years ago.
that story was just posted on jeffthomasbooks.wordpress.com.
-
-
Scully
Congrats, Jeff!
I had no idea the Russians were selling Japan on Amazon
I used to love writing short stories and need to get back to it!
-
39
My sister just sent me this text.
by Brainfloss inmy sister sent me this text a few minutes ago.
what does she know about my relationship with jehovah?
it was followed up by a bunch of links to jw org problem is dialog is not possible her side is the only one to be heard.
-
-
Scully
"I love you and want the best for you."
"It made my heart rejoice to spend time with you [and your family]."
"We all have the time now. Jehovah knows our heart."
You're right "we all have the time now" to get to know one another and love one another unconditionally. How many people have died estranged from family because of shunning enforced by JWs? If you truly believe the time left for me and my family is coming to a close, why would you hold back your affections until we go to meetings, out in service and resume other JW activities? Can't you see how manipulative it is to do that? It's like an ex-wife refusing access to children unless child support payments are up to date, or withholding support payments unless visitations are granted. The everyone suffers in those circumstances, but mostly it's the children who miss out on the wonderful opportunity of having no-strings-attached relationships with grandparents, aunts and uncles, and cousins.
We have all been granted the gift of free will, and we have not chosen to be estranged from you, that has been your decision (bolstered by Watchtower teachings), and we respect that. We have not discussed anything with you out of respect for your faith and because we have no desire to interfere with your dedication or "lure you away"; we would never do that. But I hope that while you trust that Jehovah knows our hearts, he also knows where our hearts are and why we feel as we do, without any prejudice toward friends and family.
We would welcome you and your family with open arms, no matter the circumstances. I'm very disappointed that you feel otherwise.
-
41
Happy 20th Birthday to JWD / JWN
by Simon inas sgt pepper sang, "it was 20 years ago today" ... that i made my first post on my first forum.. i obviously didn't put too much thought into what it should say although i must have burned 45 posts testing things and was too lazy to reset the counter before going live (?):.
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/46/welcome.
but somehow, it worked and grew and here we all are, 20 years on.
-
-
Scully
Congratulations Simon and JWD!
It’s been a terrific 20 years, I wonder how many JWs became ex-JWs and ex-ex-JWs as a result of all your hard work?
cheers
Scully
-
656
Covid-19 (Coronavirus) - Status Update Thread
by Simon inthis topic is to focus on status updates & advice (no opinion or politics please).. status.
latest status is that it's serious, probably isn't going to be contained and most large companies are making contingency plans, cancelling large events etc... which i don't think would happen if it was just people being alarmist.
the incubation period means it may have already spread further and infected many more people than are currently known, so expect jumps in the numbers over the coming days and weeks.. tracking.
-
-
Scully
I was at one of the Ottawa Costco's on Monday, and as I brought in the shopping cart one of the employees offered to wipe down the cart handle with a Lysol wipe. I let that happen and then thought to myself, "okay, now where's the Purell so I can sanitize my hands that have just been touching the handle before you wiped it down?" It's these kinds of gaps that give people a false sense of security with the efforts to help, when in fact it seemed to me to be more of a mentality from Costco of "hey, look at us, we're doing something to keep our customers safe, so shop here even more!" They were out of toilet paper the following day.
I also took an inventory of my supply of N-95 masks, which I use every day in my work. I'm probably okay for a month or so. I also ordered more from my supplier, knowing there is a backorder, hoping that I'll be in the queue when they become available once again, and won't have to reschedule clients due to lack of masks.
-
16
Hellooooo! 6 years since i posted
by Aussie Oz inso... it has been six years since my last post.
i wonder who still remembers me?
a lot has changed and then again, a lot has not.... i'm still out of course as are my children who are doing very well.
-
-
Scully
Hi AussieOz,
I pop in now and again too. Good to see you.
-
7
the martyr syndrome
by eyeuse2badub inwhat is the gravest sin a jw can commit?
i’m not even going to consider the so called “unforgiveable sin” since no one knows what it is anyway!
is it lying, cheating, stealing, pride, envy, being gay?
-
-
Scully
Saying that you think their beliefs are bullshit. That's the one that will get you tarred and feathered and tattoo'd with a scarlet A on your head.
-
32
READ: Watchtower's SCOTUS petition
by Corney inon june 25, 2019 watchtower ny filed petition for a writ of certiorari in the u.s. supreme court.
the society asks to reconsider a $4 million judgment against it in a california child abuse case.
docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-40.html .
-
-
Scully
This issue of a tribunal system to hear grievances within the JWs was the crux of a legal case in Canada years ago. The court decided that due to the tribunal format wherein more than one individual heard the confession of a congregant, the ecclesiastical privilege rules did not apply to the JWs.
Here is a more recent ruling against Watchtower: https://www.reminger.com/insights-reports-615.html
McFarland v. West Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Lorain, OH, Inc., 9th Dist. Lorain No. 15CA010740, 2016-Ohio-5462
"During the course of the litigation, McFarland sought the production of certain documents between the Congregation and the Congregation’s governing bodies regarding McFarland, her allegations of molestation and the alleged abuser. The defendants withheld approximately nineteen documents from their production, claiming that these documents were protected by the clergy-penitent privilege. (Id., ¶ 10.)
"In examining whether the clergy-penitent privilege applied in this instance to each of the disputed documents, the appellate court began by noting that not every word authored or spoken by a cleric is automatically privileged and there is no protection for communications made for secular purposes – even when those communications were intended to be confidential. Ward, 128 Ohio St. 3d 212, 2010-Ohio-6275, at ¶ 15; Niemann v. Cooley, 93 Ohio App.3d 81, 88-89 (1st Dist.1994). Further limiting the clergy-penitent privilege is the fact that the privilege stems from a penitent’s desire to receive spiritual counsel, not a cleric’s desire to give it. See Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 51 (1980).
"In its examination of each of the nineteen disputed documents, the appellate court only withheld production of those documents where the defendants clearly satisfied their legal burden of demonstrating that the document served a religious counseling purpose rather than a secular one. For example, correspondence between governing elders and various congregations were not deemed confidential because they did not involve an instance of a particular penitent confiding to a cleric. (Id., ¶ 16.) Another letter, in which the author was drawing attention to the Congregation’s handling of a particular matter, was also not privileged because it did not pose any questions to the elders or request advice of a spiritual nature. (Id., ¶ 20.) Further, the court also refused to protect those documents involving persons unrelated to the McFarland dispute, finding no third-party privacy rights applied. (Id., ¶ 53.)
"Finally, the court rejected defendants’ claim that the production of the disputed documents violated their First Amendment rights by exposing their “internal discipline procedures and beliefs regarding repentance, mercy and redemption to external, secular scrutiny.” (Id., ¶ 56.) The First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause prohibit states from enacting “laws that have the purpose or effect of advancing or inhibiting religion,” or expressing a preference for any one religious denomination. Varner, 500 F.3d at 495. The Clauses apply to limit the power of courts to hear suits whenever the questions of discipline, or of faith, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law have been decided by church judicatories.” Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679, 727, 20 L. Ed. 666 (1871).
"In rejecting the Congregation’s First Amendment claims in McFarland, the appellate court noted that the First Amendment does not protect religious institutions from disclosing relevant, non-privileged information. Thus, because the documents were not privileged, there was no need for the court to interpret or evaluate the defendants’ religious beliefs or internal governance. In short, because the question of relevance was purely secular and “did not require the court to delve into religious law and policy” there was no merit to the Congregation’s First Amendment claims. (Id., ¶ 59, relying, in part, upon Howard v. Covenant Apostolic Church, Inc., 124 Ohio App.3d 24, 28-29 (1st Dist.1997)).
"In total, the appellate court found that only four of the disputed documents were protected from production by the clergy-penitent privilege. The significance of this holding is that despite the generally-held belief that matters of church governance and policy are protected from production, there are strict limits applied to the clergy-penitent privilege and determining whether the privilege applies requires a careful, case-by-case analysis."