Battered spouses disfellowshipped for leaving violent partners.

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

https://www.therockymountaingoat.com/2019/12/new-shelter-for-women-children-in-valemount/

 

New shelter for women, children in Valemount

It marked almost 20 years to the day that she fled her husband with a year and a half old child, pregnant with a second child. For leaving, she was excommunicated from her Jehovah Witness church and no longer allowed contact with her family.

“I was not only on my own with two babies, but I had no family support,” she said. “If it wasn’t for community, I would have been lost.”

Thoughts on this please.

I have read that women have been told to return to their husbands even if the husbands are violent. Does anyone have any personal experience of this happening to ones close to them ? 

 

 

[TrueTomHarley]

2 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Thoughts on this please.

There is some piece of information not supplied. What it is I have no idea. But one would not be disfellowshipped for leaving one’s husband, whether he was violent or not.

Add adultery into the mix and that might well be. I do not say that adultery IS the missing piece here, but there is a missing piece.

2 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

I have read that women have been told to return to their husbands even if the husbands are violent

Where you read that was in one of several post from detractors critical of an article in the December 2018 study edition of the Watchtower. I wrote up a reply to that on my own blog. It may also be here—many posts like that I also put here—but I cannot locate it:

https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/01/did-the-watchtower-give-women-bad-advice-.html

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

But one would not be disfellowshipped for leaving one’s husband, whether he was violent or not.

I believe I have already related the case of my own sister, 5 years younger than me, who was disfellowshipped for leaving a violent husband. He was a ministerial servant when I was at Bethel, and he hit her fairly often. She went to my father (an elder) who gave her the usual counsel about more study, more prayer, more field service. This was frustrating to her because she was already a full time pioneer and praying more than ever.

Her breaking point came when elders, including my father, told her she couldn't go to the hospital because they might ask her how it happened and this would bring reproach on Jehovah's organization. And she couldn't lie. She was told she should hide her bruises and cuts as well as she could. All the while he remained a ministerial servant. I called him from Bethel and threatened to beat him up if he laid a hand on my sister again. I expected a meeting with elders who would want to talk with me after I made a violent threat, but nothing came of it.

Long story short, my sister had her meeting with the elders, and she wanted to separate from her husband. Although this should have been allowed the elders were still adamant that this, too, would bring reproach. She insisted she would ignore their counsel, and that she would even try to get a divorce, so they formed a judicial committee from which my father had to recuse himself. She had not asked for a divorce, but this would be considered both unscriptural and bring additional reproach. In her mind, she should obtain a divorce, even if she wasn't thinking about remarriage. As long as she didn't commit adultery or remarry, (which would be the same as adultery) she thought a divorce was a stronger, more legally binding version of a separation, which would have been allowed (or at least should have been allowed).

Basically, she was disfellowshipped for defying the counsel of the elders, who were "only trying to avoid bringing reproach on the congregation." (To her they accused her of "bringing reproach on the marriage bed.") The circuit overseer agreed with them, and she remained df'd for a while. The circuit overseer also had her husband lose his "status" as a ministerial servant, and I think this lasted more than a year before he was reappointed, and later became an elder.

This was around 1978, when most elders had little experience, and there was a lot of patriarchal dominance in some of the midwest congregations like this one. Also, my sister was not really made aware of any appeal process. Now the information about the appeal is part of the process. Training in such matters is a little different today, and I certainly do not think this would happen again in any congregations I know about.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Entirely believable, JWI, as I have seen stuff like that and worse ....

I am a Barbarian, and my record is better than theirs for understanding what scriptures really mean, as their understanding is policy and agenda driven, and they can enforce under penalty of disfellowshipping any crazy nonsense a normal person would immediately see as nonsense.

 

[Srecko Sostar]

8 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

New shelter for women

It would be ok if WT Society, as Charitable Organization, build or buy some places for shelters of this kind. For JW's female members. In such case things would stay "in a family" and needed person would receive some help.

Don't get this serious! That could be devastating. Because "little dark secrets" would be/stay under internal control. 

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

Thank you all for your replies.  It is most strange to see the contrast though. 

Quote @TrueTomHarley "There is some piece of information not supplied. What it is I have no idea. But one would not be disfellowshipped for leaving one’s husband, whether he was violent or not."

Quote @JW Insider "Basically, she was disfellowshipped for defying the counsel of the elders, who were "only trying to avoid bringing reproach on the congregation." (To her they accused her of "bringing reproach on the marriage bed.") The circuit overseer agreed with them, and she remained df'd for a while."

Quote @James Thomas Rook Jr. " I am a Barbarian, and my record is better than theirs for understanding what scriptures really mean, as their understanding is policy and agenda driven, and they can enforce under penalty of disfellowshipping any crazy nonsense a normal person would immediately see as nonsense."   (I have put as bold to highlight the point).

So what we have here is, one JW saying how it should be, 'by the JW rule book'. And two JWs saying how it really is. Boots on the ground / Real life happenings. 

There is a man who uses the name @Space Merchant that often talks of how the JW Org is 'managed'. He tends to think that the JW Org operates 'by the book'. Whether that be by God's book or by their own JW handbook. 

But what are we seeing here ? We know that God and His son Jesus Christ are full of love and mercy, and they want the best for as many humans as possible, as long as those humans obey God's rules and show love to God and to neighbour. 

So where is this 'force for evil' coming from ? Is it the GB making the rules that are wrong ?  Is it the Elders in the congregations that are wrong ? Is it the Circuit Overseers that are wrong ? 

The point is, there is no love or mercy for the victims there.  There is only this idea of 'Cleaning the outside of the dish, but leaving the inside dirty'. The idea of protecting the name of JW Org. It in no way protects God's name, because God does not need His name protected. God cannot be made 'unclean' because He is perfect and righteous. 

However there is a danger to face. IF people inside and/or outside JW Org, believe Mr Harley's thinking, then the blame will always be put on the Victims. The Elders and Ministerial Servants will always get away with committing sins against God and Christ, and causing suffering to many people in many ways. 

@Srecko Sostar I like your suggestion. i think it would be in line with 'caring for widows and orphans'. But as you say it may encourage 'misuse'. 

(Sorry for big writing, it happened after third quote. But it did change back to smaller writing again, on it's own  )

 

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

So what we have here is, one JW saying how it should be, 'by the JW rule book'. And two JWs saying how it really is

How it really WAS.

Or to be more specific, how it really, on occasion, was.

You have a way of zeroing in on just a single sentence without regard for ones just before and after. Did you overlook this one?

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

This was around 1978, when most elders had little experience....and I certainly do not think this would happen again in any congregations I know about.

 

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

How it really WAS.

Or to be more specific, how it really, on occasion, was.

You have a way of zeroing in on just a single sentence without regard for ones just before and after. Did you overlook this one?

 11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

This was around 1978, when most elders had little experience....and I certainly do not think this would happen again in any congregations I know about.

 

•  

JW Insider, is a JW now. Think hard Mr Harley. If you were giving such information would you not  try to top it off with a positive note on the end ?  JW Insider gave FACTS, then gave his opinion. I believe his FACTS, I will take note of his opinion. 

I have known enough Elders in enough UK congregations to form my own opinion of their 'experience' or capabilities. The life time of an Elder isn't that long you know. They seem to become Elders at around 30 years old and die at around 70, but they loose their marbles at around 55 / 60. Then it's new ones that have to learn it all.  

Oh and did you take note of Mr Rook's comments too ? Or did you overlook that one ?   

[Srecko Sostar]

12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

She went to my father (an elder) who gave her the usual counsel about more study, more prayer, more field service.

I believe how this is quite "normal and spiritual" advice, almost for every problem, until our days. :))

12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

This was around 1978, when most elders had little experience, and there was a lot of patriarchal dominance in some of the midwest congregations like this one.

Male - female issue. Domination issue. Theocratic order issue.

In this what was said and what life give us to see, it is notable to understand how problems that are common to worldly society are visible as similar or same problem in spiritual society aka JW organization. Men want to be boss and women have to obey them. That is not issue itself, because every group give power to one person who making decisions. If wife decide to give this to husband than it is willingly. But if wife see things in other way, husband is not entitled to break her will with force, of any kind. 

Well, does Jesus' teachings giving all authority and power to husband for beating his wife and/or children?

If answer is NO, we can make sort of excuse or explanation with everything we want, but there is NO EXCUSE.

No matter of what period of time we speaking about and try to understand how looked practice of elders in specific part of the world in specific circumstances and moment,  WT Society is/was not acting under principles that giving love, justice and comfort to victims. Primarily (in cases like this or about CSA) they care about  look and about status that look have to bring in own eyes or eyes of people. This is not good.

This bad examples (past and nowadays) giving evidence, proof how they have problems in communication with holy spirit ....or Jesus' teachings.  

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

JW Insider, is a JW now. Think hard Mr Harley. If you were giving such information would you not  try to top it off with a positive note on the end ?  JW Insider gave FACTS, then gave his opinion. I believe his FACTS, I will take note of his opinion. 

Of course! That is why I know that Trump is a slaveholder. Because George Washington was. Historians just try to top it off with a positive note on the end. They don’t fool me. Those abused slaves may not have been revealed, but I know that they’re there.

Think hard about THAT, Mr 4Jah2Me. You dope—if JWI was so concerned about “a positive note at the end,” he wouldn’t have given his negative note in the first place!

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

44 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Of course! That is why I know that Trump is a slaveholder. Because George Washington was. Historians just try to top it off with a positive note on the end. They don’t fool me. Those abused slaves may not have been revealed, but I know that they’re there.

Think hard about THAT, Mr 4Jah2Me. You dope—if JWI was so concerned about “a positive note at the end,” he wouldn’t have given his negative note in the first place!

I think JWI was trying to give hope to the present day sheep.  

[TrueTomHarley]

3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

If you were giving such information would you not  try to top it off with a positive note on the end ?  JW Insider gave FACTS, then gave his opinion. I believe his FACTS, I will take note of his opinion. 

You must forgive me on this, but the more I think about this remark, the dumber it appears.

As already stated, if he was so obsessed about leaving a positive note on the end, he would not have supplied his negative note at the beginning. 

It gets dumber. It is not just a fact that he has offered in your eyes— it is a FACT! But his opinion? Obviously he doesn’t know what he is talking about and he may even be lying. Yet when it comes to chronology you are like a child at his feet, lapping up every word—never doubting for a second his judgement, even while admitting it is over your head because you don’t really dig into things.

His grasp of Witness lore and governance is so unequaled that his opinion might be more of a fact than his FACT. I don’t doubt what he says, but the point is to you he is just an uncorroborated single witness. People are notoriously unreliable in relating even their own experiences, where emotion can easily taint memory. There are people who stumble over the trees, but their grasp of the forest is unhindered. There is nothing but your own prejudice to say it is not that way here.

You are sort of a screwball who appears to assume that the very purpose of this site is to supply you with dirt on the faith that you were once a part of and now can’t see a single point that is upright—to the point where, if fresh dirt is not supplied, you chide participants here for not adding anything of “value.” You are like the antitypical nutty farmer diligently cultivating weeds, ripping out any wheat that raises its nasty head since that is NOT what you are looking to harvest.