Question for Elders or Ex-Elders re: Marriage

by mya 41 Replies latest social relationships

• 

  Doubting Bro

  I'm not disagreeing that some BOEs would take the stance that minimus & blondie are suggesting. But, I don't believe that to be the current "written" policy. I put written in quotes because the last direction elders got from WTS was read to us via the CO and handwritten in our Flock books.

  I think the term the WTS uses is tacit support. That attendance alone gives implied support for the marriage to the unbeliever even if the parent objects. I remember a few years ago that CO reading a letter at a circuit assembly BOE meeting that we needed to make notes in the margin of our Flock book regarding this subject. However, I'm pretty certain that it was speaking specifically about someone who was baptized getting married to someone "wordly" as they say.

  For all the command and control tactics Patterson engages in, many times their edicts are applied inconsistantly. Especially when theres a chance of being harder than what the GB has outlined. And generally, if the BOE (with the COs blessing) moved to have him removed, sucessful appeals are few and far between (in my experience).
• 

  minimus

  ZARCO, remember one thing and you will learn this being on this board----whatever the Society's OFFICIAL position, it means diddly-squat if the locals prevail. My friend who was deleted was SO sure that he was technically within his right by Society standards that he wrote a couple of letters to the branch only to be told to be humble, go out in service and follow the instruction of the elders in his readjustment. And nothing at that time in writing stated that if he went to the wedding he'd be deleted....The BOE will do what they want to do andin this case the new CO wanted to make his mark. Either the body see things the "proper way" or they get the boot too. Sad to say, that's the reality of the "Theocracy"........Irreverent, I really like you.
• 

  zarco

  I am certainly not more enlightened than anyone, but have recently handled situations very similar to what is being described. In one such instance the CO wanted to remove a brother for attending such a wedding (of a non baptized child) and after our body wrote the branch the brother was not removed.

  I realize that many have been elders in the past, but in this instance someone is asking for the current policy of the WT. I am not saying the policy is right or wrong. I am just saying that I have the current policy.

  Please let mya's question be answered with what is currently happening

  zarco
• 

  Doubting Bro

  Minimus,

  We posted at the same time and I agree with your statement. If the local BOE gets the COs support, they can sack whoever they want. And, if this is a pet peeve of the CO or of someone on the body who is close with the CO, they can do whatever they want.

  Just curious, how did that "unjust" action by even WTS standards effect your friend? I ask because I recently saw this same situation play out, only the daughter in question was baptized. The effect on the parents was that they quit going to meetings. Not sure how long that will last, but this is a couple that special pioneered in the 1970s and are somewhat connected.
• 

  blondie

  mya, are you baptized or were you viewed as an unbaptized publisher in the congregation? I see what you are saying, zarco...if she were not baptized, things might be different. But remember it is the BOE that makes the decision....there is no set rule that applies to every congregation...look at what happened to the elder minimus knew...he was told it is a conscience matter and he was still removed.

  Voting is a conscience matter.

  Taking a blood transfusion is a conscience matter.

  Yet we know what the BOE will do when the find out.

  Blondie
• 

  minimus

  They (exelder and wife) still go, answer very little, and are "waiting" on Jehovah. Meanwhile I just heard that my brother, an ex elder too, just got appointed a MS! Yay!!!!! The Organization has these pathetic people by the b*lls!
• 

  willyloman

  Perhaps the lesson illustrated by this thread is: Each congregation, body of elders, CO is different and may act in a different manner when confronted with a "gray area." And the WTS rule book is full of gray areas.

  If two elders from different locations insist that such-and-such action would be the likely result of an elder attending this wedding, it is futile to argue that one of them is "wrong." The WTS is not consistent in its application of all these petty rules. It all depends on the personality of the congregation and its decision-making personnel.
• 

  JWdaughter

  Mya, sorry you have to deal with this stupidity on the 1st happiest day of your life (to be rivaled by the birth of your children) I don't know what the rules are so much. It used to be that JWs could attend the weddings of non=jws as long as it wasn't in a church. But I was never an elder! An idea that might get your father thinking independently is to say, Dad, I understand why you won't attend (if he doesnt) but could you show me from the Bible how going to a wedding in a country club is against any Bible principle? The union of man and woman may have been instituted by God, but it isn't a formal sacrament such as baptism that is laid out in a liturgical or formulaic way. Didn't they basically parade through the street, get to the brides house, have a feast and go home? No ceremony involving clergy anyway? Their rules are so stupid. THis is a case of pharisaical decree-going beyond what is written. Which is wrong-even according to the Bible.
• 

  JWdaughter

  What I am getting from reading all of the comments is that "according to conscience" is referring to the ELDER bodies conscience. Its not the individual JWs conscience, it is the conscience of the elders that matters.
• 

  sammielee24

  As an ex-elder, I can only tell you that it is labelled a conscience matter. BUT. I would NOT have attended my daughters wedding if it was held by anything other than a JW or a judge. Any person in the clergy class would have been considered as directly under satan's control - a direct link to satan. I personally don't know of any elders that would have done anything different than what I would have done. Doesn't sound logical now, but back then I would not have allowed myself to do otherwise. sam.