Co-Ordinator of BOE Secretly Putting His DF'd Daughter First
Long story short, a friend of mine around the same age as me is DF'd. She's from another city. We met up a few months ago with other exJWs. She seemed happy and in a new relationship. I found out this week that she was hospitalized. Her boyfriend (a non witness) was beating her. This time he broke her jaw, a few ribs and stabbed her in the leg. She was hospital and the guy has been arrested.
Being DF'd her family were having nothing to do with her. Even through this. I was really worried for her mental state because when i spoke to her on the phone she was over the top happy to speak to me, would laugh at things i said even though i wasnt being funny, and kept asking me what church i go to and what church she should go to (im an atheist). Her dad is co-ordinator of the BOE and she told me today that (1 week after this ordeal) they've finally spoke to her and he dad is letting her move in to the family home but not saying anything to the BOE.
Dont get me wrong this is good news. But my worry is, will they make her attend meetings? Will she fall back into the cult for acceptance and being told what to do? She's clearly seeking guidance. What's Watchtowers stance on this if it gets out? Would her dad have to step down as an elder?
Just be a friend to her. She will really need one!
Wow man im so sorry... that is an awful story.
To answer your question, yes the elder would be removed if it came out, at least strictly by wt standards. If that body is liberal maybe they look the other way and give it a pass as her being destitute and therefore its ok. I dont know her situation in detail and what the elder in question may be able to point to... and i think we all have an idea as to whether or not she will be “encouraged” to go to meetings... of course she will. And threatened with being out out if she dosent. And manipulated emotionally because she will be happy to be home. And it sounds like she was lonely also (we all have the need for friends). Shes in a terrible spot... just be her friend and offer whatever support you can.
The KM 2002 below is quoted in the Elder's book (with a 'paper-trail' through to 1978, as noted below) - so I presume is therefore still 'current'.
I believe it would be on the understanding that the child was living a generally 'moral' life at least when in the family home, and was not notoriously known by others to be living an 'immoral' life when outside the family life.
Also by saying "for a time" would indicate some kind of timeline for the child to get better and move out again from the family home. Of course, unfortunately, their are also situations when the mental/emotional and/or physical illness may also be a long-term or even life-long one, so it might need to be for an 'extended' time.
Kingdom Minstry, August 2002
Display Christian Loyalty When a Relative Is Disfellowshipped
The Watchtower addresses another situation that can arise: “What if a close relative, such as a son or a parent who does not live in the home, is disfellowshiped and subsequently wants to move back there? The family could decide what to do depending on the situation. For example, a disfellowshiped parent may be sick or no longer able to care for himself financially or physically. The Christian children have a Scriptural and moral obligation to assist. (1 Tim. 5:8) . . . What is done may depend on factors such as the parent’s true needs, his attitude and the regard the head of the household has for the spiritual welfare of the household.”—The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, pages 28-9.As for a child, the same article continues: “Sometimes Christian parents have accepted back into the home for a time a disfellowshiped child who has become physically or emotionally ill. But in each case the parents can weigh the individual circumstances. Has a disfellowshiped son lived on his own, and is he now unable to do so? Or does he want to move back primarily because it would be an easier life? What about his morals and attitude? Will he bring ‘leaven’ into the home?—Gal. 5:9.”
Watchtower, September 15, 1981
If a Relative Is Disfellowshiped . . .
But what if a close relative, such as a son or a parent who does not live in the home, is disfellowshiped and subsequently wants to move back there? The family could decide what to do depending on the situation. [see footnote]
For example, a disfellowshiped parent may be sick or no longer able to care for himself financially or physically. The Christian children have a Scriptural and moral obligation to assist. (1 Tim. 5:8) Perhaps it seems necessary to bring the parent into the home, temporarily or permanently. Or it may appear advisable to arrange for care where there is medical personnel but where the parent would have to be visited. What is done may depend on factors such as the parent’s true needs, his attitude and the regard the head of the household has for the spiritual welfare of the household.
This could be true also with regard to a child who had left home but is now disfellowshiped or disassociated. Sometimes Christian parents have accepted back into the home for a time a disfellowshiped child who has become physically or emotionally ill. But in each case the parents can weigh the individual circumstances. Has a disfellowshiped son lived on his own, and is he now unable to do so? Or does he want to move back primarily because it would be an easier life? What about his morals and attitude? Will he bring “leaven” into the home?—Gal. 5:9.
In Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son, the father ran to meet and then accepted his returning son. The father, seeing the lad’s pitiful condition, responded with natural parental concern. We can note, though, that the son did not bring home harlots or come with a disposition to continue his sinful life in his father’s home. No, he expressed heartfelt repentance and evidently was determined to return to living a clean life.—Luke 15:11-32.Footnote: Comments on the situation of elders and ministerial servants are presented in “Questions from Readers” in The Watchtower of February 1, 1978.
Watchtower, February 1, 1978
Questions From Readers: If children in the household of elders or ministerial servants come under a “charge of debauchery,” what determines whether the family head can continue to serve the congregation in an appointed capacity?
If gross wrongdoing by children in the household does raise serious questions in the congregation about a man’s presiding in a fine way over his family, he should not continue serving as an elder or as a ministerial servant. When the man serves as an elder and his fellow elders allow their judgment and decision to be swayed by friendship or sentimentality to the point of sidestepping Scriptural principles, then especially can his continuing to serve as an elder, though unqualified, be spiritually hurtful to the congregation. This is because it can undermine respect for the entire body of elders. It can provide an excuse for other children in the congregation to engage in wrongdoing. So, it is good to keep in mind that the man’s abilities as a speaker or an organizer or his likable personality are really not the point at issue. The determining factor is whether he is fulfilling his role as a father in a fine way. Only if he is may he continue to serve. Of course, when that is so, the body of elders should avoid being unduly critical and faultfinding in reviewing his family situation.
May as well post the relevant ks book pages as well....
Isnt it sad that they'd need permission from KM's and Watchtowers rather that go with their natural affection as parents?
dad may well be glad to be removed as the cobe.
The father is doing the right thing, he won't be able to keep this matter secret and that might be his downfall. The best option will be to inform the BOE of the situation and depending of how well they get along and like him they might allow him to stay as an Elder.
There is enough material in his favor but he has to be transparent.
Its in his hands which he prefers, a dead daughter from physical or mental abuse or remaining an overworked figurehead in a religious order. Me thinks he's making the right choice.
Also what pale said.