My awkward elders hearing
I can't help but notice the similarities between our lives. I am also currently 21, I was baptized even younger than you (10) and had my first run in with a JC because of my libido too, (twice actually) I got reproved the first time and remained on restrictions for a couple of years, all the time praying that Jehovah would help me. (He never did. Go figure.) Then I later got disfellowshipped for another count of acting on the natural urges of a young man. Though, that was back when I still would have felt guilty for keeping something from the elders. Unfortunately, I am not also moved out of my parent's house, ah well hopefully a college education will end up being worth this torture for another couple of years.
I remember as a elder during a JC the other two elders started with very personal questions like you went through. I stop the meeting and ask the person they was questioning to leave the room. After that person was gone I read those two elders the riot act. After that they keep their mouths shut for the most part. Needless to say they did not care much for me after that. Sorry for what you went through. If you was 16 at the time why was'nt one of your parents there? I just say that maybe those assholes would not have been so personal in the questioning. Again welcome to this board and good luck to you. Still Totally ADD
Steel: send him a subscription to Penthouse.
And what about minding one's own business? It is right there in their own damnation book that people should make it their aim to mind their own business. In fact, that is one of the two criteria for "marking" people as walking disorderly (the other is the freeloader that is always mooching off others and never even trying to work).
I don't think questioning people about specific sexual activities is minding one's own business. How far it went isn't even the pertinent question, even in their own warped theology. It is supposed to be the attitude--is the person aware there is a problem and trying to fix it? It matters not whether it was oral, anal, finger, or whatever or how much happened. According to their own theology, if the person that did it is trying to right the situation, that is enough and that's what they should be trying to determine and not "how far it went".
To me, this sort of hypocrisy is worse than the act itself. Claiming to abide by that damnation book, even claiming you have the monopoly on it, binds you to abide by the whole thing. Even the parts that prevent you from dominating another's life. Even the part that admonishes people to mind their own business. As the hounders are supposed to be exemplars, they should be held to it. Unless and until they stop claiming the damnation book as their holy doctrine, they are bound to the whole thing.
I've always found the practice of elders in a judicial committee involving fornication asking for detailed descriptions. Fornication is fornication. The more important questions would be -
How many times before you confessed?
Did you come to use or did someone else report you?
My story is similar to many - My JC was for fornication involving my wife and I. The incident happened just before we were married (engaged and wedding date was set). We went to the elders about 2 months after we were married.
I was completely floored! We were treated totally different than I expected. We were told by these 3 elders that they believed we were truly repentant, but they then said we had to be punished. Punished?!? First time offense that technically CANNOT be repeated! We lost all privileges. 2 weeks later, one of the elders on our JC who happened to also be our Book Study overseer asks me to read at the Book Study. WTF?!?
This truly opened my eyes. I knew then that the who process was BS.
When I was an elder from 1986 to 1991 I had to sit on a JC with a young brother who I was close to. He had committed sexual immorality and confessed. I could never bring myself to ask those idiotic graphic questions but the one elder I swear got off with the questions he asked. My reasoning is that JC's are as close to getting off for some elders as looking at porn. They don't look at porn (as far as I know) but they just love hearing the dirtiest and most intimate details. I will never forget the questions the elder asked. "Did you ejaculate"? ans. "Yes". "Where did you ejaculate"? ans. 'In her mouth". I almost lost it on that one. It was all I could do to not laugh out loud. So happy that I quit when I did. Such a bullshit religion. Jesus didn't ask the sinners to go into detail about what they did. He just said they were forgiven and to sin no more.
"Did you ejaculate"? ans. "Yes". "Where did you ejaculate"? ans. 'In her mouth". I almost lost it on that one
You've got to be kidding.....
Where did you ejaculate"?
Aside from the obvious, this question is particularly odd because where he ejaculated doesn't bear any relevance to the question of whether or not a disfellowshipable offense had been committed.
In other words, the outcome of the JC wasn't going to turn on where the guy dumped his load. If she put her mouth around the rim of his tool, that's oral sex, a disfellowshipable offense under JW standards, regardless of whether or not he climaxed. The question of where his load ended up is even less relevant.
What a weird little world I used to be a part of.
god--you couldnt make this stuff up.
if i were a young jw male in front of the kangaroo court i would really give them some details about what ive got up to.
like--i had to go in her mouth--it was the only vacancy at the time.
What a bunch of pervert elders!
If one must confess to some human, why isn't it enough to say that inappropriate things occurred and leave it at that? I should think if one is old enough to be fooling around in any capacity they certainly know if it was inappropriate according the jw rules and intimate details are not necessary.
I thought jw's like to think of themselves as "gentlemen"? Gentlemen do not kiss and tell all the details to anybody. If anybody questioned my child in this manner they would not be of this earth for long.