I want to know why he made no mention of Dijana going before the Wilmslow JC to give testimony. After all, she was the one who found the sext that set this all into motion, right?
In a series of disciplinary meetings before a “judicial committee” comprised of three elders I was asked to go into extremely intimate detail regarding the nature of my online encounters, what precisely these involved, with whom and how often. These hearings were extremely emotional. I recall breaking down in tears on at least one occasion. At the time I did not feel the nature of questioning was overly invasive or inappropriate. I believed I was receiving needed discipline from God’s organization, and I simply had to man up and see it through for the benefit of my marriage. Of course, I now cringe at the thought of sharing such personal matters with men who had no more right to this information than my local postman or storekeeper, but at the time I was convinced it was necessary.
Uhm, who would also have information related to the nature of these online encounters. The person who discovered it? That's the whole intent of a JC, especially when there are two witnesses. Question them separately and find out if there are any details that don't mesh. Her testimony is a HUGE detail he's leaving out of the Wilmslow JC. He met them 3 times. How many did she go to?
Lloyd's always so quick to bring his wife into everything and use her as a shield. When the JC happened in Sisak, he spared no detail in saying how upset his wife was and how she refused to have any contact with the elders. This had been his MO on this forum as well. "This is upsetting my wife! You must stop- criticising my article about Candace Conti winning the deed to Patterson. You owe me and my wife an apology!" After the livestream it was all about how it upset her and always you are attacking "us", "we", "our family".
Yet here is the star witness whose testimony is at the very crux of his sexting scandal at the Wilmslow JC, and not one word about her going to give testimony and how upset she was about going into personal matters. He did manage to relate how emotional it all was and how he was in tears. Hmmm, I think that would also drive Dijana to tears, probably even more so as she thought her husband wasn't attracted to her (his words). They would have quizzed her on their sex life, what the sext said, if she found any others (she did), if she found out who this other person was, and other very probing questions.
If he had his way, they would have gone straight to Croatia. This was her idea, wasn't it?
Dijana made it clear that she
wanted the intervention of the
elders, no matter the outcome. After
all, this was not a one-off incident.
Dijana had caught me in a similar
situation only a few months after we
were married, and previous
attempts at sorting out my issues had
clearly failed.
Well Lloyd, you told us everything else. Why does her involvement mysteriously end here, and you are the one facing the elders alone? Forgot to put that part in?
Or was forum poster Raymond Frantz correct in saying there was no Wilmslow JC, only a Bramhall one where you were removed as an elder. If Dijana had been trying to get back to Croatia to help her ailing parents, then she chose the path that would have likely placed the most obstacles in front of them both. This makes more sense if he had already been removed as an elder and privileges taken away. Of course she could have been a die-hard JW and wanted to go by the book, but Lloyd seems to always get what he wants when it concerns them.
I have no clue what Geoffrey is like. But I have no doubt that he is protrayed in TRA in the worst possible light.
I feel that the story of Geoffrey and his list of grievances against him was to put forth a particular narrative of oppression and to play the mythical "good elder". Also, it was a handy way to explain this subsequent passage after Dijana found the sext:
Dijana agreed
that Geoffrey was the last person to
involve in fixing our problems.
Well Dijana agreed with him that Geoffrey was a "bad elder", so you see, this is why we had to leave Bramhall so quickly and make preparations for Croatia!
It's like reading the Hebrew Scriptures. There are sensational stories about Moses parting the Red Sea and Noah and his ark. If you assume these are real figures in history, you need to filter the bullshit out. Therefore: Moses and Aaron led a Hebrew slave revolt and many people died. allegorically accounted for by the Golden Calf and Korah/Dathan massacres. Evans is the same way. Filter the bullshit out, and you'll find only a half-completed story with glaring omissions that manages to raise many more questions than what he had originally intended.
