Update on my JC situation

by drew sagan 62 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Frank75

  OTWO - I've never been on an appeal committee, and nobody ever appealed a DF that I was on the committee for. They were extremely rare and I would say I heard of 2 successful appeals out of 50 cases ever. That's better than 1 in 500.

  I want to be clear that I do not doubt your experience in regards to JC's you've been involved with. I do not think anyone here really believes that there are not kind and compassionate men in the JW religion serving as a shield for people who need it.

  That is not the norm is all I am saying and so are the others.

  You likely never got a nod for appeal committee because you or the body you served with was not the type the CO would lean on. He would have had his party faithful to go to.

  Appeals in many areas are rare not because people are always guilty of something, but rather of threats made by JC's. This is a fact, that many people are told an appeal is proof of unrepentance! Such appeals never pan out as the appeal committee only looks for errors in the original case. Since there is not an official record, it becomes the accused word against 3 elders. Hardly fair. Also the accused is told that people who appeal usually take longer to be reinstated.

  Now none of this is said in an outright evil way but couched in terms that are subtle and coercive. I have heard of women being scolded and yelled at. My sister in law is one of them.

  Another question. Do you not see a problem with the investigators serving on the committee that judges those actions in the end?

  We could talk all day about the ridiculous concept that is embodied in Christians judging one another in such a puritanical way and seeking the opinion of men on guilt and innocence even forgiveness with regards to things we are all guilty of in one way or another. However it is simply the structure of and the procedure/process alone of such meetings that is draconian, unloving and wicked.

  Indefensible!

  Frank75
• 

  Frank75

  Frank, you are correct. My experience with someone that we thought was cleverly playing a game with us---was not the norm. And I'm sorry but I would think that the elders would think a person was jerking them around and respond accordingly. It's called human nature. It might not be right but it happens----especially when a publisher tries to shake up the elder's jc.

  I am not entirely sure I understand what you are agreeing with.

  The problem I see in what you point out is that is the way any elevated group is going to view those beneath them. Rarely is a JC concerned about how their "attitude" is towards the person or any, "shaking up" and games they may be playing. The focus becomes centered on the underling.

  These separations and class structures that exist in the JW religion and most others is what is wrong.

  Jesus said "who is greater the one ministering or the one reclining?"

  Such a simple line of questioning from Jesus exposes the JW religion as upside down as those "ministering" or who believe they are ministering do not in any way shape or form believe the others to be superior. If they did they wouldn't judge!

  Frank75
• 

  Frank75

  As to appeal committees. I don't recall any going to appeal in my area, but I would say that overturning one would be very possible. Here is the reason.
  
  MANY elders feel other elders or bodies of elders are idiots. Certain congregations have specific reputations in this area.

  UC:

  Sure anything is possible, but like someone else said, the tables are very much stacked against you.

  Something you may not realize is that an appeal committee has no authority whatsoever to "overturn" anything. If they think the original committee has made a mistake, they cannot let the accused know but must instead convince the JC to change their mind. If they cannot, they are to simply write what they feel in a report to the Society and the JC is not to announce DF'ing until they hear form them. The feelings of the appeal might be validated by the Society however that would be extremely rare, because they hide behind the JC for legal reasons. If the Society or branch office start to dictate what they should judge then this weakens their defense strategy of scapegoating the JC in a legal battle. Dissenting appeal committees never get a call back and their notes, arguments and reasoning just ends up buried in Bethel archives.

  The appeal process is a joke, and that is why you never hear about it. I know of good elders who honestly told people it wouldn't work and not to waste their time. They knew the way appeals were structured and knew it was a waste of time!

  If the appeal committee disagrees with the decision to disfellowship, the decision should be discussed with the original judicial committee privately.

  If both committees agree that the person should not be disfellowshipped, the individual should be so advised.

  The appeal committee will send the branch office a brief explanation of the mutual conclusion not to disfellowship reached by both committees, which should clearly state that the original judicial committee agrees with the decision.

  The original committee will receive a copy of the letter, which will be kept in a sealed envelope in the congregation's confidential file.

  Here is the clicker:

  At times the original committee and the appeal committee may hold conflicting opinions.

  When this occurs, the individual should not be given any indication of the conclusions of the appeal committee. Simply tell the person that the decision is pending.

  The appeal committee should send the S-77 and S-79 forms to the branch office with a letter giving reasons for its decision and should include a letter from the original committee expressing the reason(s) for disagreement.

  The appeal committee gives the original committee a copy of its report. Both committees await a reply from the branch office.

  There is also a subtle undercurrent in the instructions in the KS book and any correspondence I have read from the Society, first it always comes back to the sin said to have been committed, that is the real offense and not the repentance at all. Read the instructions in the KS book carefully to see what I mean.

  Then there are statements like this that push an outcome

  When the disfellowshipping is upheld by the appeal committee, there is no further right to appeal.

  Not IF, but "WHEN" it is upheld.

  Frank75