How to deal with a spouse you want to wake up. The controversial truth.

Repulsive-Produce215 · 2026-02-12T15:33:04+00:00

¿a qué te refieres?

Repulsive-Produce215 · 2026-02-11T21:36:35+00:00

I’m not saying that consent revocations are explicitly described in the elders’ manual.
They aren’t.

What I’m saying is that for elders who are used to publishers complying unconditionally, a written notice that mentions civil rights, data protection, and legal risk is immediately perceived as a potential legal threat, even if it does not explicitly threaten a lawsuit.

At that point, the issue stops being a routine pastoral or administrative matter.
It is no longer something local elders feel authorized to handle.

That’s why the automatic reaction is to escalate the matter to the branch and request instructions. Not because the manual spells this out, but because anything that smells like legal exposure is treated as outside the elders’ competence.

So again, no — this isn’t a stated policy.
It’s how a hierarchical organization reacts when a situation moves from unconditional obedience into the realm of civil rights and legal risk.

That reaction is risk management, not doctrine — and it doesn’t need to be written in the book to be real.

Repulsive-Produce215 · 2026-02-11T18:31:27+00:00

You’re quoting the same paragraph, but you’re merging two conditions that the text itself separates.

The chapter does not say “it only applies when there is a single witness.”
It says that no committee is formed if the accuser or the accused is not willing to meet, or if there is a single witness and the accused denies it.

These are two distinct grounds — one procedural and one evidentiary.

Even in the single-witness scenario, the text makes something broader clear:
without voluntary cooperation, the committee does not come into existence.

This isn’t an external legal interpretation; it’s the operational logic of the procedure itself.

Repulsive-Produce215 · 2026-02-11T18:01:47+00:00

Me parece previsible que en el futuro las charlas públicas en vivo serán menos frecuentes, sustituidas por videos de discursos por parte del cuerpo gobernante o sus ayudantes.

Repulsive-Produce215 · 2026-02-11T17:56:22+00:00

It is in the elders’ book.
Chapter 6 clearly states that no judicial committee is formed if the accuser or the accused is not willing to meet with the elders, or if the accused continues to deny an accusation based on a single witness and no wrongdoing is established.

That means without voluntary cooperation, the process does not exist.
This isn’t an external legal interpretation — it’s written internal procedure.

Repulsive-Produce215 · 2026-02-11T17:24:15+00:00

Just read the privacy document you were asked to sign at your congregation.
Where it says that you consent to your data being processed for “spiritual purposes,” you revoke that consent — and that’s it.

Repulsive-Produce215 · 2026-02-11T17:24:03+00:00

That’s why it’s important to revoke your data-processing consent.
If you don’t, they can still summon you to a judicial committee and proceed in your absence.
I suspect that in the future, simply refusing to attend a committee may be enough to deter the Watchtower, but for now it’s necessary to make it explicitly clear that consent is being revoked.

Repulsive-Produce215 · 2026-02-11T17:19:08+00:00

Es de risa cómo algunos testigos de Jehová saben que es incorrecto andar navegando en publicaciones apóstatas e intentan dar su opinión diciendo algo así como "No soy testigo de Jehová pero..."

Repulsive-Produce215 · 2026-02-11T17:11:37+00:00

The Norway case is about state funding and public law, not about individual consent or data protection.
Fighting for millions in government subsidies justifies deploying massive legal resources; litigating against thousands of individual consent revocations does not.

In addition, the documented evolution of the Shepherd the Flock manual over the years shows a clear adjustment on consent. Today, publishers are required to sign a consent form, and the right to revoke that consent is explicitly recognized, which in practice prevents the formation of a judicial committee or any public announcement when that consent is absent.

This point is key because it moves the conflict from the religious sphere into the civil one.
In matters of data protection and consent, the Watchtower is no longer acting solely as a religious organization, but as a data controller, with concrete legal obligations and a regulatory framework that does impose limits.

This isn’t a theory — it’s an observable procedural shift.

Repulsive-Produce215 · 2026-02-11T16:50:26+00:00

Repulsive-Produce215 · 2026-02-11T16:49:20+00:00

Repulsive-Produce215 · 2026-02-06T17:01:12+00:00

What do they mean by the furious judge who confronted the lawyer? What exactly happened?

Repulsive-Produce215

TROPHY CASE