CAN A PERSON ... OR SHOULD A PERSON …. BE DISFELLOWSHIPPED IN ABSTENSIA?

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

CAN A PERSON ... OR SHOULD A PERSON . BE DISFELLOWSHIPPED IN ABSTENSIA?

Here is the situation .....  a person REPORTED to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses is accused, and NOT convicted ( ... because he is a fugitive from Justice ...) .....

Apparently he was at one time in a "Position Of Authority", which possibly alludes to his being an  "Elder", and he may have relocated to another State or even another Country. Possibly using an alias.

The  various Congregation Elders cannot find him, the Society cannot find him, and the U.S. Marshal's Service cannot find him.

Not having any indication to the contrary ... at least from the information given in the pseudo-Wanted Poster shown above, he is possibly still officially one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Whether he is or not, his bad example raises an interesting  aspect of trying to figure out how the disfellowshipping "system" protocol actually works.

Can any of the Congregations  he went to disfellowship him without his being present  to answer charges ?

... and SHOULD he be?

 

[Evacuated]

5 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

CAN A PERSON ... OR SHOULD A PERSON  …. BE DISFELLOWSHIPPED IN ABSTENSIA?

In absentia. Theoretical answer is "Yes". (Matt.23:33)

Individual cases? No comment.

[JW Insider]

16 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Whether he is or not, his bad example raises an interesting  aspect of trying to figure out how the disfellowshipping "system" protocol actually works.

These are exactly the kinds of situations where the protocol can go out the window. I don't know the status of this person, but you could probably call the WTS/CCJW and find out. Anecdotally, going back about 40 years and another situation going back 5 years, I know about a couple cases where the congregation was asked to DF someone "in absentia" to mitigate a possible crime scandal.

Also, in effect, all Witnesses who had previously disassociated were disfellowshipped "in absentia" in the early 1980's. This was a necessary change in order to be able to create protocol for disfellowshipping R.Franz. He was caught eating a meal with his employer who had previously disassociated himself. Making the two different statuses equal would mean that he was now eating a meal with someone who had been disfellowshipped which therefore made R.Franz subject to disfellowshipping.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

YIKES!I

I knew the story about Franz,  but not the back-story!

I guess there is more to abject ruthlessness, than knowing where Ruth is.

... wow.

 

 

[Srecko Sostar]

 

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

...create protocol for disfellowshipping R.Franz. He was caught eating a meal with his employer ...

I think i was read about this in his book "Crisis of conscience".

 

 

 

[Srecko Sostar]

15 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Whether he is or not, his bad example raises an interesting  aspect of trying to figure out how the disfellowshipping "system" protocol actually works.

Can any of the Congregations  he went to disfellowship him without his being present  to answer charges ?

... and SHOULD he be?

 

I suppose how some answers on this we can found  in fact that WT are organized to have own, separate, independent "judicial" system based on some other kind of "law". WT judicial system and law is creation of mixed OT and NT examples, rules, commands.  

Elders are viewed as "judges", because WT gave them to be in such position,  as "princes" of future NW system and as such have all rights to rule over members today. All matters, testimonies,  statements, evidences, counter-findings, etc. must be presented to them, for to be able to make a judgment, a decision. 

According to that premise about elders role and in fact (WT) parallel  christian judicial system vs. secular judicial system ,  they should not rely on processes that have, that took by "worldly people" (because they are "unreliable"), secular authorities and their investigations or even their courts that reached a verdict (acquitting or convicting). All  should be confirmed or denied in the "court of the saints". :))

 

[JW Insider]

19 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

CAN A PERSON ... OR SHOULD A PERSON  …. BE DISFELLOWSHIPPED IN ABSTENSIA?

LOL. For a few minutes there, I thought you were misspelling it on purpose, to emphasize the "stench" in ab-stench-ia. But the rest of your post was too serious, so I assume you already picked up on the funny typo, and on GA's correction. I would also say, similar to GA, that even if our protocol is always to allow a person to hear the charges against him and even face an accuser where necessary, etc., there is probably nothing wrong with "disfellowshipping" in absentia. A person can make it clear they want nothing to do with Jehovah's Witnesses by their actions, it doesn't always need to be formalized. 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

If the mis-spelling was funny, it was deliberate.

Seriously, though,   merely ignorance of the true spelling, and a spelling corrector that occasionally doesn't have that word conjugated.

... if that is the right word ......

... not to be confused with prison conjugated visits.