I was with you Mr. Free that is why I repeatedly asked him. When my Dad called the only thing they would tell him was, it is a conscience matter and up to you if you want to speak to her. She is not disfellowshipped. If you want more information ask her to see her letter, we can tell you no more. The reason they are doing this is fear of legal action that I threatened. They know if they tell people not to talk to me they will be sued so they are covering their own ass. The cool thing is if anyone asks the PO he will tell them the same thing and since I am spreading to the only people who matter to me that it was merely a baptism nullification, they can call and ask him and still be able to talk to me. I could care less about everyone else. I would like for my parents to take a less dogmatic stance but that is for another blog.
Strange Sudden DF'ing/Baptism Nullification ATTN. LURKERS
by unique1 30 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
LDH
I asked if people could still talk to me after that announcement. He said it is up to the individual. So I asked if my friend sees me and another witness sees her with me will she get in trouble. He said NO, it is a conscience matter if she speaks to you and up to each individual.
So he said this from the platform, right? Hells no.
Contrast this with the way the congregation is instructed to deal with a 'marked' person.....
Lisa
Conscience matter my ASS Class
-
unique1
Sorry I had a typo.
The following announcement and ONLY the following announcement (_____ is no longer a publisher) many be announced by Elders in the ____________ Kingdom Hall.
Should read: may be announced (not MANY). My bad.
I know he didn't say it from the stage but he does say it to everyone who has called him. Since I only care about a few people in the truth, I don't care what everyone else does as long as he tells them it is a conscience matter. They live 90 miles away so the chances of them being seen with me is slim to nill anyways.
-
willyloman
Another thread that illustrates so well how much confusion there is among JWs, and always has been, about the whole DA/DF process. Even on this forum, despite the large number of former elders spelling it all out, many people still have not the foggiest notion what the difference is between disassociation, disfellowshipping, or private/public reproof. These are all code terms in the WT world, and they have very specific and different meanings, all of which have been written down in some dub publication or another (which few have bothered to read).
The latest JW wrinkle, changing the DA/DF announcements to a single "no longer one of..." neutral phrase, is the result of the legal eagles in Brooklyn stepping in to save the WTS's collective ass. Or at least their money.
Now it's even more confusing...which, of course, was the intended result.
-
upside/down
I also bear no malice towards the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
I couldn't say that in good "conscience"...
u/d
-
sass_my_frass
Sorry it didn't work out the way you wanted; it's got to suck, but in reality, their crazy rules are still their rules. The new announcement is probably some kind of legal game, but as you told them that you no longer consider yourself a witness, that's what they announced. Until there's something in the publications about new light on how to treat somebody whose baptism was nullified, the R&F will go on considering it as a disfellowshipping/disassociation... you can't assume that because you see it differently, everybody else will too.
How you doing with your folks?
-
sandy
Just to be safe I think you should add to your letter one more reason why your baptism should be null.
Insert that your little toe was actually sticking out a little and the dunkers didn't notice.
LOL, Hey, it might work. -
BluesBrother
I trust that you have sent them a formal letter of appeal , but I guess it is too late to change now, in my opinion . I think that Sass My Fras is right. The dubs would not recognize the subtle distinction in what you were trying to do, and a normal d/a letter.
You said
Please know that I have no intention of associating with any Jehovah’s Witnesses with the exception of my parents.
Is this not an intention to dis-associate?
I guess you were trying to get back to the state enjoyed by the unbaptized who fall by the wayside . The latest Org. book p 157 says
"A brief announcement is made, stating 'xxxxxx is no longer recognized as an unbaptized publisher' The congegation will then view the wrongdoer as a person of the world."
They would say that they could not do that in your case because you have been baptized, and the congo knows it. Regarding the congregation's treatment of you, I am amazed by the elders remarks. The same book says 156, after describing the same announcement to be made as for disfellowshipping,
"Such a person is to be treated in the same way as a disfellowshipped person"
I cannot speak for American law, but around here, if someone ever threatened action we just giggled [as elders] because we had been told that we were on strong ground
The fact is that you were baptized, and that changes everything . Can you imagine telling a judge that your marriage was null and void because you did not know what you were doing? I am afraid that it will not wash with the Borg. Sorry mate, you are stuffed!
BTW I do not think it is spelled "Sheparding".
-
AuldSoul
I'm not a lawyer, but this statement may create a bucket of problems for them. The elders claim to be ministers, this creates certain confidentiality obligations on them (for example priests can't be compelled to testify about what's said in confession). If they talk confidential information around the congregation they are breaking that confidentiality.
Since the elders AND the entity that appoints elders in the US (the Branch Office) have routinely used Ecclesiastical Privilege as cause in court for not revealing particulars of specific situations and as cause for not reporting suspicion of criminal activity, such a statement does not have to be specified in the letter. However, if the statement is going to be included the phrase "Ecclesiastical Privilege" should be stated and consequence of breaching this confidentiality should follow from the standpoint of their losing claim to Ecclesiastical Privilege should these facts become known beyond those immediately involved. Instruct them to consult the Legal Department (WTS) if they have any concern over how serious breaching this privilege could become for them—jointly and severally—from a legal standpoint.
Basically, for such a breach an entire congregation of elders could lose its legal claim to Ecclesiatical Privilege.
We need to start getting a few databases up. People need research tools for COs, DOs, Congregations, and Elders. Since there is no mechanism for reporting these people currently and since their public servant status as it pertains to the religion precludes all expectation of privacy on their part with regard to their words in private, we can basically tell the world the particulars of our interactions with them. We need to know when a congregation or an elder breaches Ecclesiastical Privilege. This will eventually be a weighty tool in courts to compel the disclosure of certain evidence which has been historically very difficult to obtain.
If the elders do not respect Ecclesiastical Privilege (even by telling their wives who tell others) in certain intances then they have no claim to Ecclesiastical Privilege as legal protection in others cases. The difficulty has been one of proving that they only take the protections afforded under Ecclesiastical Privilege without meeting THEIR resposibilities to keep confidences under the same provision.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul -
noni1974
Here's a question.I DA ed myself 8 years ago.The letter I wrote was short and simple.
I said I no longer wanted to be one of jehovahs witness please take my name off your records.I signed and dated it.I did not state any reason for my decission.I did not meet with the Elders.I have told my Mom that my baptizem was a mistake and I did it for the wrong reasons.I told her I never really believed it in my heart and only did it to make my parents happy.Would I have to be reinstated to have this happen?
Could I still request a baptizem nullifacation?I did feel extrem pressur to conform to my family's standards.My parents forced me in to studying with three diffrant people.I have a huge JW family.And they all told me to do it.The only problem was that I was 19 years old at the time.
The reason I would like to explore this option is because I would like to be able to speak to my family again.