quote Terry - "The important question to ask is; how much of what is requested/required is in scripture.What are they making up out of thin air?Jesus never mentioned disfellowshipping and conseqently only dealt with forgiveness. Procedures and rules about exclusionary behavior stem from Paul and not the Jerusalem branch of christianity or Jesus.Writing a letter? Where does the bible require that? Professing belief in the FDS? Where does the bible require that? Professing Loyalty to the Organization? Where does the bible require that? The shepherd who leaves the 99 (faithful sheep) and goes actively in search of the 1 stray and brings it back into the fold shows where responsibility really is placed.It is the ELDER who must seek out the "lost sheep" and actively bring them back!The sheep doesn't write letters to the shepherd and confess sins and take loyalty oaths.
IT IS ALL UNSCRIPTURAL!!"
This is what's so sad and is the give-away that it's not God's direction. It's rules of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation. Individuals are only valued to the extent that they further the corporate agenda and when a mistake is made the punishment process that never really ends is to instill in the individual that they are of no value. Quite a contrast from what Pastor Russell Said. p479
"Is it proper for the elders to sit at a court of inquiry and cite any supposed to be walking in a disorderly manner to appear before them and explain their conduct?" Or should the Lord's advice at Matt 18:15-18 be followed?
Answer - "I agree with the suggestion of the question that it should be handled in harmony with the Lord's direction in the passage cited. The Lord's word does not authorize any court of the Elders, or anyone else, to become busybodies. This would be going back to the practices of the Dark Ages during the inquisition; and we would be showing the same spirit as did the inquisitors. The Lord has put the matter in a simple way and we could not improve upon it......We should remember the word of the Lord which says, 'The Lord will judge his people.' If he should need any punishment, we may trust the Lord to give it to him and not take the matter into our own hands. We should have confidence in the Lord. If we can stop the wrong that is as far as we can go."
And could I go to meeting, spilling a little cleavage and reading Stephen King?
Sure, wear pants. I show a modicum of submissiveness by getting permission for my outfit and my meeting toys before we set out. He's made a mistake a few times, but I firmly reminded him I'D ASKED FIRST. He now begs that I leave my SUDOKU at home. Too obvious. I always bring a blank notebook and pencil.
that made me laugh. i am not a UBM - thats my hubby i spose although we met when i was leaving and he was my support.
as for confession - i have read many times that the elders will ask really detailed questions like they get some sort of perverted hard on from it all. but thats only if something is being confessed. if he is asking for reinstatement, then that means he is living his life as they want him to and he just needs them to agree that he is worthy again.
His one family member that I can talk to (occasionally) about this did suggest that he answer my questions/concerns, that as my husband, he owes me that. I totally agree. He cannot answer any of them. That seems to really bother him. He keeps suggesting a bible study. (Gigantic eye-roll) Mind you, this is only a couple of times a year. We're not talking about all the time. He says he'll have to talk to someone and get answers for me. Typical. I insist that I want to know what HE thinks/feels/believes and what HE bases this on because I'm not married to anybody but him.
Yes, three elders, your husband, and the bible. They would try and keep everything "informal" and "at ease" but it's always three elders.
Not entirely true. The rules stipulate that the committee that df'd him would be the ideal committee to consider reinstatement. And the number is typically three - but not always. I have heard of committees that involved 5 or 7 elders. In some cases even more. Almost always an odd number so that the vote is not tied.
Regarding the discussions in that committee meeting.
NO HOLDS BARRED! They can ask anything they consider relevant. If he was df'd for sexual sins [most are] they will likely ask him about his current situation - and that might include his attitudes about oral or anal sex, fornication, and adultery. In his case - having been Df'd three times now - they might get pretty specific. I would not doubt that your sex life would be included in the discussion, though it likely dependent on the elders that are involved in the hearings.
Oral sex? Yes, he is quite well aware that it's taboo. And quite unable to give it up. He's been working on an explanation for five years. His best shot is that it's a "homosexual practice," and of course, I run circles around that one because it's utter nonsense. The one lost sheep discussion shuts him up real fast. He's seen me in action with "lost" people and knows how disgusted I am by people who toss them aside like so much trash. I'm big on analogies. I think if I can get him to respond to things that are not JW related enough times, when he's confronted with stuff in a JW context, he might have less of a pre-programmed reaction.
Get Crisis of Conscience and leave it around the house. He might get curious and read it. That will cure him.