by ozziepost 26 Replies latest jw friends
Poor little dubs had to clean up their congregation record of all the embarrassing "inactives".
Probably took it up the ass from a CO about it once too often.
Slipnslidemaster: "You can pretend to be serious; you can't pretend to be witty."
- Sacha Guitry
ozzie - raises the issue of __.
It also saves, to some extent, the reputation of the exDub. After all, if you have JW relatives, it could be rumoured that you were DF for adultery, fornication, etc
What do you think? Is it better to send in the letter? Or should you just ignore 'them' and leave them to play their little games?
###### i have discussed this with many and it kinda boils down to each persons case is different-
if you are th only jw in your family it really don't matter- but if you are part of a 4th genration family with all kinds of relatives then perhaps it is somewhat different
but i think this is statment is not based on what the jw mindset is:
". It also saves, to some extent, the reputation of the exDub. After all, if you have JW relatives, it could be rumoured that you were DF for adultery, fornication, etc"
I don't see how with the jw mindset there can be any degree of saving of reputation- in my exp DA oneself for apostasy is viewed as worst due to how it is understood by the avg jw
say you got an ugly wife and you get involved with a Fine sister sorta like "Venice" yea i went there- smile
anyway at least the bro could say if you got dfed for "practicing sin"
they could at least understand--
"I'm sorry Venice I just could not resist going there" smile
so at least some will understand with the Ugly wife and all that you just could not control yourself--
but now to DA for Apostasy ------well this was WILLFUL, INTENTIONALY AND YOU have Turned your back on the Most High God and his Visble Org
so they will HATE you much more and your rep will be destroyed much more than for sex
as one elder told me he would perfer to serve on an apostasy case over a sex case any day
for it is like he is going up against an agent of Satan himself and he is representing Jah - were in a sex case all you got is a guy with a hard Willy Willy he could not control
just my 2
***********8
What do you think? Is it better to send in the letter? Or should you just ignore 'them' and leave them to play their little games?
@@@@@@@@@
for me personally i would never waste a $0.32 cent stamp to mail a letter due to the fact that i understand the Orgin of the whole
DA concept- it is the Brainchild of the Legal Dept
so i would never play thier game
as i have said many times before
THEY WILL HAVE TO COME AFTER MY BLACK BEHIND
if they want me
smile
james
ozzie says:
I would think, though, that many women would find it an emotionally draining experience and very intimidating.
##########
i fully agree and not only women but also men- due mainly to the fact that the avg pub who walks into that back room has no idea of what they will exp- so they get hit from the blind side.
a few yrs after i left bethel my roomate who is truly a society man bragged about how they broke this married sister down on adultry charges- she was an elders wife who got involved with a guy on the job and they broke her down so much that this poor woman's CYCLE CAME ON an the chair was soaked in blood
what was so sad was he was proud that the "TRUTH WAS REVEALED"
the emotional toil that one could pay for some will be too high merely to TRY AND PROVE A POINT
IN MY VIEW
so this is why i have from day one highly recommended to anyone who wants out TO STAY OUT OF THE BACKROOM WITH 3 ELDERS
it is their ball and bat let them go home
JUST MY 2
JAMES
Hi Ozzie: In my own case, I chose neither, as I was trying to fade away. But, DA was forced upon me on charges that were untrue. If this had not happened, my choice of DF, DA, or Fading Away (FA) would depend on my objectives and goals.
When I turned a molester in to the authorities, I would wait on DF, because I could press a major civil suit and bring public embarassment upon the WTS.
If I had no issues to defend in this way, I might choose Da because this shows that I rejected them and did nothing wrong to deserve DA.
If I want to keep some friends and not have to deal with shunning, I could choose FA.
It just all depends. One thing I have in my favor is that I was never notified of being DA'd, and it is only rumor to me, although a likely valid rumor. But, I could go back, plead ignorance and how I was trying to work with the Elders, and that I have been waiting for 6 years for an answer. Then the Elders in my area could get into it and deal with me. I could make a good enough case that they would allow me to remain a JW.
I would only do that so I could get reappointed, and then cause some havoc. Then I could have the choice once again to Df, DA, or FA depending on my then existing goals.
But, I am content with where I am at, and have no need to do anything about the rumor of my DA or make any choices. - Amazing
For some people the finality of formal DF'ing or DA'ing provides the closure they need. Others are not given a choice. For me, the most satisfying, and certainly the most desirable course in terms of family relations, was to avoid formal shunning at all costs.
For me it amounted to not playing their game. In the Flock book the Society specifically states that if a person meets with a judicial committee, they view it as acknowledging the Society's authority. By refusing to meet with them, I avoided that trap.
One day, not long after I told my daughter (who by that time was in the custody of her JW mother) that I was going to remarry, a couple of elders called up. Of course, they gave the impression that it was only one. I told him that it was none of his business what I did, since I was not a member of his congregation and never had been (that's true because I was inactive for more than a year by the time I moved into that congregation's territory and I never asked for my old publishers record card to be transferred), and so I wouldn't discuss anything with him. Later I thought that it might be wise to give an explanation to the ONE elder alone, and one way or another make sure that they didn't try to DF or DA me in absentia. So late the next evening I called the elder and asked him if he wanted to discuss why I had long since quit the JWs. He wasn't willing, so I launched into offensive mode. I told him that under no circumstances was he or any other elder to make any announcements , official or unofficial, public or private, about my status or lack thereof as a JW. In fact he was not to discuss my situation with anyone at all. I said that if he violated that demand, I would consider it libelous and slanderous, and that I would take all necessary steps to ensure that my good name in the community was not besmirched. I told him that I was not interested in communicating with anyone in his congregation, and that if the elders leave me alone I will leave them alone. I asked him if he understood what I was really telling him. He said he did, and that they would leave me alone. I haven't heard a word from them since (this happened in 1995) and I don't expect to. He seems to have kept his word, since I've had friendly words with a few old acquaintances from that congregation since. I'm sure that this situation irritates certain Watchtower officials no end, but they know better than to try to DF or DA me now, because if they do, they'll find their asses in court in a major test case so fast they won't know what hit them. And they know it. I would very much welcome such a test case because it would force a number of top Watchtower officials to testify in ways they know would be devastating to the Society.
AlanF
AlanF:
I would very much welcome such a test case because it would force a number of top Watchtower officials to testify in ways they know would be devastating to the Society.
What's stopping you from forcing the issue? Couldn't you "accidentally" be seen at the wrong place and/or time?
-ianao
YahKnaow:
I don't force it because the whole point is that they have to initiate it. That way, I'm just going about my daily business and am unfairly attacked, etc etc etc.
AlanF
AlanF:
Surely, you could INFLUENCE them. You know, cleverly do something and happen to "get caught" so to speak. "Intice" them. Discreetley make yourself an easy target etc. etc.
I would just want to see how it turned out. I know you would do a superb writeup on the experience. It's too bad you scared them off though...
Hey, I do a lot of things to "influence" them. You have no idea. And you can probably figure out how much I enjoy it.
AlanF
Alan isn't the only one who would be involved in such a test case, and they know it. What they fear most is exposure. They are going to get it.
I'm tempted to contribute more about the issue you raise, but will wait for another forum. JT is correct on the DA, but permit a little expansion, without my going into the theological stuff on origins of the DA. Legal has picked up on this as a potent tool, and is pushing its use. Key point:
The locals DF you.
You DA yourself.
If the prime directive is to protect, i.e., organizational survival at all costs, with the objective of less liability, legal and otherwise, then it is highly desirable for them to say YOU did something. The current position is to get one to sign something or write something at almost any cost, just so they can avoid liability. In one case, their pressuresome appeal was: "Well, if this is a matter of your own feelings and conscience, do the MANLY thing, write a letter." In another case: "Only cowards won't put their feelings in writing, blah, blah."
Unless it has been updated very recently, the following statement is to be read upon disassociation:
"By his chosen course------------------- has shown that he no longer
desires to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses."
Under some circumstances the phrase may be used: "You will be glad to know that spiritual shepherds are endeavoring to render assistance."
In BOTH the DA and DF, the door is wide open, and the audience and congregation is left to speculate on what kind of heinous conduct the individual may have REALLY indulged in. But in the DA, the elders can wash their hands, tut-tut, and disclaim responsibility. And further up the hierarchy they can breathe a sigh of relief.
Important note: Taking blood or illegal fractions (unrepentantly, of course) mandates a DA rather than DF situation. Obviously this mitigates against liability I've alluded to, and is the precise reason for the change in policy, transmitted orally by the CO to elders in 2000 in the US. Purely pragmatic, not doctrinal.
Cygnus, yours is a fascinating case. (Don't mean to sound like some MD looking at a bad leg rather than the guy with the pain.) I've scented this odor before. What I mean is that this smells of your bumping into the good-old-boy stuff behind the scenes, involving either locals or your CO, or the Service Department. Was yours a situation that could not have been ignored? Bet a large sum that this provoked some hot discussion in Service. Clearly the hardliner(s) won.
Now they are faced with what to do in the case of active JWs who don't/won't shun you .... I love it. The non-hardliners wait for the consequences, while the hardliners are hoist on their own petard.
Someone posted elsewhere about pre-DF days. In earlier times it seemed okay to have intense discussion, to have different views; there was more of a sense of tolerance and an appreciation of uncertainty in many areas, even at Bethel. But as the GB got to taking themselves seriously and making policy decisions on everything ...
Maximus
