Disciplinary Actions

by Cold Steel 43 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Cold Steel

  During a disciplinary procedure, what would the response be if you wanted representation? An advocate?

  Why don't they have a group of unbiased men, a prosecutor to present the case against you and an advocate that would represent the accused? It just doesn't seem right when the judges are the prosectors and YOU have no representation. It certainly doesn't seem fair.

  I understand, too, that you can appeal a decision to elders in a different KH. But have you ever known of a decision to be reversed? This isn't a rhetorical question; I really don't know. Also, if a person goes into a disciplinary court, if that person is humbly repentant, is that normally enough to get him/her off the hook? Or in many times has the decision already been made?

  .
• 

  Gopher

  what would the response be if you wanted representation? An advocate?

  They wouldn't allow that. It's the accused JW all alone facing the star chamber. If anyone brought in a 3rd party, the elders would probably halt the proceedings right then and there.

  have you ever known of a decision to be reversed?

  Yes I did, one time back in the early 90's in the congregation I was in. It involved a young JW girl just out of high school. I knew her family and heard of the reversal (don't know if I was meant to find it out).
  
  However I would find the appeals process to be daunting. 3-against-1 in a judicial committee seemed hard enough. Somehow it seemed that in the case of an appeal, it'd be 6-against-1. Most often it's just 3 more guys who may not want to make the first 3 look bad.

  if a person goes into a disciplinary court, if that person is humbly repentant, is that normally enough to get him/her off the hook? Or in many times has the decision already been made?

  I heard that you cannot get disfellowshipped for the "sin" itself. It's a person's attitude that would tilt the decision for or against disfellowshipping.

  HOWEVER...I also heard that if a certain disapproved action became known and the congregation would look flimsy if they didn't take action, that the decision was pretty much made ahead of time. In one case in a smaller Minnesota city, I heard of a circuit overseer who came into town, and on learning of a certain notorious thing done by a JW guy in his 20's, overruled the local congregation and told them to disfellowship the guy.
  
  To me, the politics surrounding disfellowshipping in the JW environment are quite strong. If a person is not well-liked or in the right family in the congregation, the odds are against them in a judicial meeting almost from the start.
  
  I know that there are some elders who really tried to be more fair or compassionate, but it seems that very often the strong-willed disciplinarians had the final say in a lot of things in the congegations that they believe they ruled.
• 

  thedog1

  From my own experience, it's not three against one or six against one. I am an elder, and have served quite a few times on judicial committees. Each time the goal was to discern if the person was repentant according to scriptural standards. No decision was made ahead of time. We weighed the evidence, if the person denied they had done it. So no foregone conclusion. If they confessed to doing something wrong, then we discussed the matter with him/her and only disfellowshipped if the person was not genuinely repentant.
• 

  KateWild

  only disfellowshipped if the person was not genuinely repentant.-thedog1

  Do you believe Holy Spirit helps you determine how genuine a person is? Sam xx
• 

  Captain Blithering

  The answer to that would be that the hs wrote the bible and the bible is used throughout to judge repentance. The real question should be "did the hs inspire the elders manual" as this is FAR more often referenced than the bible in my experience...
• 

  thedog1

  We certainly pray for it when making decisions. Do you feel that in your case the JC did not believe you were genuine?
• 

  DesirousOfChange

  Tho no longer serving, I'm told that there is increased pressure on elders to "keep the congregation clean" vs. "erring on the side of mercy". Thus if someone even confesses to, let's say immorality, on more than ONE occasion, then this can be construed as a "practice of sin". They did not feel remorse; stop the bad conduct; turn around; and confess their sin. Rather, they made a practice of sin before getting caught (or even finally feeling enough guilt/remorse to confess).

  This type of case is where the politics plays an important roll. It's strictly a subjective decisions on the part of those 3 elders.

  1) If they like you &/or your family, then they can reason: Did the person just go through ONE bad time in their life --- thus not a "practice" of sin (even tho they fornicated 20 times)? Public reproof, or maybe even private reproof.

  2) If they don't have any fondess for the person the reasoning is: How can someone who committed a gross sin dozens of times be considered anything but a "practicer" of their sin? OUT the door ya go.

  It's politics. Not Holy Spirit. A sincere elder may not even realize their own bias.

  Doc
• 

  Gopher

  Thedog1, while I appreciate that you are one of the elders who applies mercy when possible, I have seen some elder bodies carry out their duties with a certain vengeance. Don't know why, but that's exactly what happened to me. I was disfellowshipped on very flimsy false accusations, and don't know where they got their "two witnesses" from. (The accusation against me was some nebulous charge of "lying", not apostasy or fornication or smoking or any clear incident.)
  
  So maybe I carry that impression of harshness in certain elder bodies with me, but I am sure I am not alone in this.
• 

  ADJUSTMENTS

  Thedog1

  Each time the goal was to discern if the person was repentant according to scriptural standards.

  What are the scriptural standards to discern if a person is repentant? To me it sounds like the elders hide behind the guise of scriptures to make it ok to basically JUDGE someone... Did the person not cry or cry enough, or get on their knees and beg enough to another imperfcet human being, so then they are deemed not repentant??? There are people who just don't show emotions... People who have lost loved ones and don't shed a tear... That type of situation should be handled by a qualified educated (in psychology) person, and even they get it wrong sometimes! We shouldn't be judging anyone, I don't care if the so called holy spirit appointed you ( which it didn't). An imperfect human cannot perfectly judge a imperfect human... It's the simple laws of physics. There are too many factors, nepotism, association, friendship, used to be friends etc... only to name a few, that sway the minds of imperfect human elders so it ends up being a personal imperfect human decision and not the holy spirit!!!

  If someone comes in and says: yes I committed fornication and I will do it again! Well that's a no brainer!!! Even then who are we to judge someones mental state??? That's for God to judge and God alone!!!

  But if someone says I made a mistake and I asked God for repentance then how can you truly DISERN if the person was repentant??? I don't care if they didn't say a word and just passed you a piece of paper with those words... So what does genuinely repentant mean to you??? That's an opinion!!!
• 

  DNCall

  Advocacy is not allowed. If you want to quash a judicial meeting just inform the elders that you will be bringing your attorney.

  The answers to your other questions depend on the elders involved and, at times, the degree of the service department's involvement.

  Every appeal committee on which I served reversed the original decision and the service department honored our finding. In one instance though, and this involved a special committee attempting to resolve a business dispute, it became clear that the service department had already passed judgment. When our committee came to a different conclusion, we were fired and replaced with another special committee who, while agreeing with our findings, were off the hook when one of the parties confessed to sexual immorality. The new committee took disfellowshipping action and in this way, the matter was resolved.

  I have seen compassion, reasonableness, mercy and wisdom at times; but at other times, politics, ego, faovitism, Simony and dishonesty.