There remains no policy where they try to force someone to da
No such policy exists in writing. I repeat that in cases of suspected apostasy they will pressure for a DA if they are struggling to justify reasons for DF. Stop being so naive.
Do elders still ask inactive members to write a letter to disassociating yourself from the Congregation?
by RULES & REGULATIONS 47 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
cofty
-
_Morpheus
Cited on page one of this thread, the ks txt book, chapter nine, paragraph two. Elders are not to try and force anyone to DA. Reading isnt your strong suit. Makes me question all those “i read a book that said...” threads you make.
I try to walk away but im constantly amazed at how ignorant you are and want to see how deep it can go. We havnt found bottom yet but i intend to keep digging. Its sunday night and there isnt much else going on.
-
SnakesInTheTower
A couple of things.
In 2002, I attended MTS, Ministerial Training School. Both instructors were long time DOs. One served a stint on the Service Desk. Here is what they said regarding this matter:
WT policy on DA is to accept a letter, but try to get in person verification. A notorized letter is gold, but rarely given. This is especially true when a letter is received out of the blue. If verification cannot be had by in person or by phone witnessed by 2 elders, then any DA announcement would be held in abeyance pending Branch direction. If the person insisted, then after 7 days the announcement would be made.
As the manual posted earlier stated, if a JC was in process, that would end but would be put in the local file along with the notification to the Branch about the DA. If the person came back, then the original JC matter would be reopened.
We as a class were told never request a letter. NEVER. I can also tell you each of us elders in the class knew of individual elders or bodies of elders who disregarded official policy and indeed did solicit DA letters because the wanted the individual gone. The instructors also knew of this happening and said it was against policy.
I sat on a JC of an apostasy case, which I have discussed on this forum (ironically, someone who used to post here). There were elders who wanted this guy gone, he was considered a troublemaker. Too much thinking on his part. Cooler heads prevailed, CO got involved, made the entire body sit on his JC case. Voted to DF, unanimously. It was a loyalty test. Then the appeals committee met with all of us and upheld it. That is what this fellow wanted, he challenged the system, knowing the outcome. He did not DA.
By action or letter, you can be DA. Officially you cannot be pressured into a DA. Unofficially, that $hit happened all the time.
Snakes (Rich)
-
cleanideas
Well you all can argue all you want, I didn't attend meetings for a year and the elders showed up one day and asked me to DA myself because they found out I was gay. Never been in a relationship, but they were forceing that decision on me. I said no and they DF'd me instead. That's the homophobia a JW in Midwest America lives with.
-
SnakesInTheTower
Exactly, they can and do apparently.
Snakes
-
smiddy3
Their must be a few others on here if not plenty of them that must be wondering if they are officially DA ,LOL
Why ? because when I DA`d myself many years after leaving the Borg I was never contacted back again to verify my action and since i had moved to another state that they knew of I wonder if it was ever announced from the platform.?
Not that I really give a rats arse
Just saying
-
slimboyfat
It’s interesting how to read the evidence from the elders manual. It states, “at no time should the elders ask the accused if he wishes to disassociate himself”. On the one hand this is a simple statement what elders should not do. On the other hand it does raise some questions. First of all, the instruction does seem to imply that elders have been known to suggest disassociation in this situation, as an easy way out for everyone concerned, hence the “clarification” that this should not be done.
Plus the paragraph does seem to have a particular situation in mind, where someone is being investigated, and to avoid embarrasssment (discussing sex usually) or process individuals may seek an easy way out for themselves and disassociate to halt the proceeedings. The paragraph acknowledges this as a loophole in the investigation process but instructs elders not to inform the publisher of the loophole in order to abbreviate the process.
What the paragraph doesn’t seem to have in mind is the kind of situation we are discussing here, where elders may suspect a publisher of apostasy or other “wrongdoing” which they cannot prove. It’s entirely plausible, in those particular circumstances, that elders will pressure the individual to “out” themselves, disassociate, and clean them off the books. Many on the forum have experienced exactly that.
In other words disassociation is not to be recommended to publishers when it makes the life of the publisher easier. (To avoid an embarrassing judicial committee) But it seems that elders would and do recommend disassociation when it makes their own life easier. (To “clean out” apostates or gay people or the like)
-
smiddy3
I`ve said it once i`ve said it before and I will say it again ,the G.B, Elders speak out of both sides of their mouth .
-
stan livedeath
i bet the members of the governing body laugh their heads off when they read threads like this.
like a bunch of squabbling girls.
-
snugglebunny
Are folk who DA themselves to be shunned in the same manner as DF'd persons then?