Dino: Your style reminds me of an old H20 poster named "Friend" who got into the same type of argument with me ... and he could not seem to understand that written policy is not the only governing factor. Now on to some of your points:
So in going back to your words above, in what way does a few elders consensus constitute "oral tradition"?
The Oral tradition is not always universal, as shown in this post which is confirmed by a number of former Elders. That is, it lacks consistency. One CO says one thing, and the next CO says the opposite. I am surprised you seem to ignore this reality given the exhaustive experience you claim you have. But the one constant is that unless some action is totally outside the interests of, or in someway threatens the Society, they normally uphold the decisions of the Elders in DF matters ... even when such decision are not clear in written policy.
Also, how did two bodies of experienced Elders arrive at such similar conclusions unless something was 'orally' suggested to them by COs or DOs or other Watchtower officials? When I stated that a newly reinstated JW "can" be DF'd again for not making progress in attending meetings and Field Service ... I was not stating that this was a written policy nor did I state it was a universal 'oral' policy ... but is is an understand held by a number of Elders from differing areas ... and it has been applied with the sanction of the Watchtower Society ...
... so in that sense it """CAN""" be done ... much the same as other types of DFing can be done though no specific written or universal oral policy is in force ... there are nonetheless traditions and oral understandings that do get circulated and become valid over time. Some do not ... my point in this post it that I believe the responses in my earlier post were written from a rigid perspective, not allowing for the realities inherant in JW practice. Likewise, at times on this and other forums, I have learned of things other Elders have said and done that did not fit my own experience ... but I had to allow for the fact that it does exist, and that for some reason the Society sanctions these as well.
Did you hear this at a KM school, CO's visit, or perhaps at one of the supplementary elder's meetings at an assembly, all of these being the main way that the SOCIETY'S oral tradition is handed down? Or maybe you called the service desk? Please enlighten us.
I already did "enlighten" you by stating that my first learning of this was among other Elders, and by checking with a congregation in another area (in San Francisco) 45 - 50 miles to the south of our congregation. The San Francisco Elder I talked with was a co-worker at Bechtel Power Corporation, and he was advised by the Society and a Circuit Overseer.
Let me ask you another question, ... Do you still feel that restrictions on newly reinstated persons are placed because they need to show "works that befit repentance"?
Yes, absolutely. If you recall, years ago the Society banned applause for those newly reinstated viewing this as inappropriate, as though the applasue suggested the reinstated person had done something special ... rather, their reinstatement was to be viewed as only a beginning, and they have a long road to prove themselves once again.
Additionally, I did not state that DFing a newly reinstated person for lacking meeting attendance or Field Service was the norm, and in fact, if you read my original post again, you will see that it is "not" the norm ... but it "can" be done ... and in one case I know of for certain, it was done.
This does not mean that JW Elders are looking to re-disfellowship easily. It just means that the newly reinstated person must go through a process to regain all priveleges and once again hold a good standing ... and one way to do this is to engage in works that befit repentance ... if you look up that expression in the Watchtower publication index you will be more enlightened.
Maybe the problem you are having with me is that we are seeing things from different ways, but not communicating well for some reason.
If you will recall, not one former elder agreed with your assertations.
If you recall, all former Elders on this thread, excet you, have agreed to everything I stated. And part of what I stated in the opening of this thread included the issue from the first thread ... so you claim is not true. My 'assertions' as you wish to call them are nothing more than stating factually what I experienced, observed, or particiapted in. Nothing more and nothing less. So there is no way that in the former thread anyone can debate my own personal experiences ...
... and knowing the religion as we all do, I am surprised you seem to make such a big deal out of trying to be right in some technical way ... it is something that can and does happen, though not written as first debated with me ...
And I might add (gathering from some of the past elders histories posted here) they had quite a combined number of years serving as such.
Good ... and their above comments to this thread certify that they too see matters as I stated them.
So what say ye, my man? I will not be able to respond until this weekend. - Dino
It is said.
Edited by - Amazing on 17 September 2002 21:56:31
