Could Someone Be Disfellowshipped For Not Believing In The "Overlapping Generation" JW Doctrine AFTER Being Baptized?

[Anna]

6 hours ago, PeterR said:

I hadn't realized that people could create new topics under your name without your say so. But this is the second one for me now.

So if anyone thinks I started this and haven't replied I can assure you I wasn't even aware that this topic existed until a couple of seconds ago.

This happened to me a few times as well. The Librarian (or someone) seems to take the liberty to do this when they see fit. I wish they would ask first...

[The Librarian]

@Anna the key would be to stay on topic or start your own new topic. 

I only fork it off if it is completely astray from the topic theme.

[A Nice Guy]

I'm sure @The Librariandoes what she thinks is best for the orderly good of the entire library. She deserves our admiration.

[Anna]

7 hours ago, PeterR said:

By the way, even though I didn't raise this topic, the answer to the title question is ... YES

Will it happen? Not in the majority of cases. But the fact that it can and does happen should raise a red flag because some people are getting hurt.

That is far too simplistic. A disfellowshipping happens for several reasons and merely not believing something is not one of them.

So....I did ask the elder. Of course he did not give me a yes or a no answer immediately. He said it depends. But disfellowshipped directly and specifically for not believing the overlapping generation NO. Of course I already knew his answer because he has known about my feelings regarding this topic (overlapping generation) for a long time and I have as yet not been disfellowshipped and don't ever expect to be over this issue. It stands to reason. There is no scriptural basis to disfellowship someone for not believing something which is ambiguous, or not clearly set out in the scriptures, or is not a core teaching.  A case in point: The experience of Willi Diehl in last weeks WT study. He knew getting married was not un-scriptural, therefor he went ahead despite sanctions and despite some treating him as if he was disfellowshipped. But he was not disfellowshipped. Another situation; in the video at the convention last week, (Friday 4:15 - How you can by no means ever fail) the brother did not go along with the 1975 idea, because, in his own words "something just didn't seem right" he reminded himself that we cannot know since Jesus said no one knows, and that he was dedicated to Jehovah, and not to a date. Similarly, if someone does not go along with the overlapping generation idea, because they personally do not see sufficient scriptural evidence, then that is no grounds for disfellowshipping.

Back to the "it depends". If someone created enough fuss and caused divisions and unrest in the congregation because he insisted everyone came around to his view, then if that person continued despite nicely being asked to stop, then he could end up being disfellowshipped. Not for his belief, but for causing divisions. And disfellowshipping for that does have scriptural basis.

[Anna]

1 hour ago, The Librarian said:

@Anna the key would be to stay on topic or start your own new topic. 

I only fork it off if it is completely astray from the topic theme.

Of course, that would be ideal, but as you see, it is kind of difficult to stay on topic, especially if it's not you who changes the topic in the first place....but yes, I understand.

[PeterR]

7 hours ago, The Librarian said:

@Anna the key would be to stay on topic or start your own new topic. 

I only fork it off if it is completely astray from the topic theme.

 

Yes, fair enough. I do understand the issue.

Just as a suggestion, I don't know whether it's possible just to embed a moderation note at the start of the first forked post with a standard line to say "This topic was split from another topic and was not started or given a title by this member." But maybe with better wording than mine.

No problem if not. It's just an idea.

[PeterR]

6 hours ago, Anna said:

So....I did ask the elder. ... He said it depends.

Indeed, and I think I've acknowledged that.

 

Quote

But disfellowshipped directly and specifically for not believing the overlapping generation NO.

OK. But now he's saying how he would apply the letter of the law, rather than what's possible according to the laws and guidelines.

I could give you references to the ks book, letters to BoE and CO's, notes/recordings from elder school, all of which you could take back to your elder and ask him about.

I won't do it of course. I do not have any motivation to convince you that would prompt me to cross that line. And I suspect even if you saw the material with your own eyes you would simply say it was all hypothetical. But that would be to miss the point that measures are in place to enforce belief in this, or any other doctrine, if in someone's opinion the circumstances warrant it.

 

Quote

Of course I already knew his answer because he has known about my feelings regarding this topic (overlapping generation) for a long time and I have as yet not been disfellowshipped and don't ever expect to be over this issue.

And I know plenty of other people who are known to have quietly voiced that they don't accept the teaching, and they remain in good standing. I also know others who have paid a price for voicing a difference. As your elder says "it depends". Now he probably means it depends on what other factors there are in the case of the person, but it also depends on the elders themselves. Especially if a particular type of CO gets involved they have the latitude to DF someone for not believing in any unique teaching of JWs.  

 

Quote

It stands to reason. There is no scriptural basis to disfellowship someone for not believing something which is ambiguous, or not clearly set out in the scriptures, or is not a core teaching. 

I agree that there is no scriptural basis for it.

 

Quote

A case in point: The experience of Willi Diehl in last weeks WT study. He knew getting married was not un-scriptural, therefor he went ahead despite sanctions and despite some treating him as if he was disfellowshipped. But he was not disfellowshipped. Another situation; in the video at the convention last week, (Friday 4:15 - How you can by no means ever fail) the brother did not go along with the 1975 idea, because, in his own words "something just didn't seem right" he reminded himself that we cannot know since Jesus said no one knows, and that he was dedicated to Jehovah, and not to a date.

Please don't get me started on this or the librarian will fork me off into another new topic. I'll just say in passing though that they are effectively putting up someone as a good example because he was ignoring what was in Watchtower print at the time in favor of what he understood from the Bible. When someone does that today guess what s/he gets labelled as.

Before you say it wasn't in print, have you never seen the quote "Now is not the time to be toying with Jesus' words about the day or the hour ..."?

 

Quote

Similarly, if someone does not go along with the overlapping generation idea, because they personally do not see sufficient scriptural evidence, then that is no grounds for disfellowshipping.

Back to the "it depends". If someone created enough fuss and caused divisions and unrest in the congregation because he insisted everyone came around to his view, then if that person continued despite nicely being asked to stop, then he could end up being disfellowshipped. Not for his belief, but for causing divisions. And disfellowshipping for that does have scriptural basis.

 

There is a lot of truth to that. But what you may not be factoring in is that it takes two to tango. The "unrest" that results can very much depend on the listener rather than the speaker. You may have one congregation which is laid back enough to see this for what it is, and do nothing. But you may have another with some highly strung people who react very quickly to hearing anything that doesn't sound 100% "loyal" to them. And thus the wheels can be put in motion for some serious damage.

 

 

 

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, PeterR said:

I'll just say in passing though that they are effectively putting up someone as a good example because he was ignoring what was in Watchtower print at the time in favor of what he understood from the Bible.

This is absolutely incorrect. He was ignoring prevailing opinion at the time. His quote specifically states it was not the organization's view at the time. (hence, not in Watchtower print) I didn't drill down any further, seeing no need to challenge every word from trustworthy persons. But frankly, I thought is was their view at the time, with regard to Bethel service.

If you want special privileges anywhere, you may have to conform to some rules. These are not binding for Christians in general, but only for those who wish to officially represent JWs, as elders and MS's do. With Bethel service, I believe it is more a matter of conforming to family headship, Bethel often being called 'the Bethel family.' Among actual families, one family head decrees this or that rule for family members, another does not, or has different ones.

Nobody has to serve in Bethel. Nobody has to pioneer. Nobody has to serve as an elder or MS. But if you do, there may be additional requirements beyond that which apply to Christians generally. It is that way with representing anyone anywhere.

 

[PeterR]

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

This is absolutely incorrect. He was ignoring prevailing opinion at the time. His quote specifically states it was not the organization's view at the time. (hence, not in Watchtower print) I didn't drill down any further, seeing no need to challenge every word from trustworthy persons. But frankly, I thought is was their view at the time, with regard to Bethel service. 

 

 

Okay Tom. Let's test that.

At the end of 1968 this brother would have been studying the following Watchtower in the congregation:

*** w68 8/15 p. 494 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
 

I encourage you to examine it for yourself as if you were this brother at that time, and then see if you can sustain your response. There are too many highlights to choose from, but the one I was referring to in particular was this one:

 

*** w68 8/15 pp. 500-501 par. 35 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end.

 

The entire article was 37 paragraphs of building anticipation for 1975.

Please bear in mind that this was not "an opinion piece". This was a study article which all were expected to learn from and apply. So to say in this assembly video that this brother felt forewarned by what he had learned at the meetings is .... ?

Ah, now you may get picky and say that this was a few years before 1975 and maybe the fervor in print had cooled off by then. In that case please show me the mitigating texts that this brother was supposed to have drawn from. In fact the KM was praising those who sold houses and left jobs right up to the year itself. And this brother says "some even went so far as to sell homes and give up jobs ...". Hmmmm.

I know an elder who cuts out significant soundbites from study articles and sticks it on his wall as a reminder of "current truth". They will stay there for as long as it takes unless that truth is changed. So if this brother in the video had treated the Watchtower as seriously (and most did), then he would not have been "ignoring prevailing opinion at the time" as you suggest, but rather he would have been ignoring food from the FDS.

If you don't care to look up the article and other relevant material in print at the time then I would be happy to supply more quotations. But I imagine that will suffice to at least have you reconsider your assertion that what I wrote "is absolutely incorrect".

 

 

 

 

 

 

I personally

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Shiwiii]

19 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I believe that, as Christians, it's our responsibility to question all things, but doctrines need not be the highest priority to Christians. They can't be ignored, but Christians should be more conscientiously concerned with moral standards, serving the needs of others and showing love for God and neighbor and allowing those priorities to motivate all of their life and conduct. Doctrines will find their place as time permits.

I'm sorry but I just cannot accept this part of your post in all honesty. In an essence you're saying "just go along and be a good person, nevermind if the foundation of your beliefs are all outta whack, it'll work itself out." 

The doctrines of a belief is the foundations of that said belief. You even eluded to this in a different post. 

[JW Insider]

7 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

I'm sorry but I just cannot accept this part of your post in all honesty. In an essence you're saying "just go along and be a good person, nevermind if the foundation of your beliefs are all outta whack, it'll work itself out." 

The doctrines of a belief is the foundations of that said belief. You even eluded to this in a different post. 

I think you have the essence pretty much correct. What sort of persons we ought to be is a much higher priority than our exact doctrinal beliefs. Witnesses believe this even if most of us don't say it out loud because we know that even the Watch Tower Society under Russell and Rutherford and Knorr and Franz had hundreds of doctrines wrong, but we don't judge them as having been judged harshly by Jehovah. We also believe that billions who have lived and died in the past in every religion on earth will be resurrected to an opportunity to live forever. But we know that Jehovah considers only two teachings to be of the highest priority: love of God and love of neighbor. He is not concerned with specific works, or works at all. Jehovah is concerned with our motivation, and if our motivation is love of God and love of neighbor, then proper "works" will follow naturally. 

Here's how good doctrine ("healthful teaching") will follow. Our love of God makes us want to know more about him. We would expect him to have made himself known without excess difficulty. As Paul says in Romans:

(Romans 10:6-8) 6 But the righteousness resulting from faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ that is, to bring Christ down, 7 or, ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ that is, to bring Christ up from the dead.” 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your own mouth and in your own heart”; that is, “the word” of faith, which we are preaching.

So the "word" is near to us. If we listen closely with a desire to know God better, we will hear it being preached, we will find Bibles and books that comment on the Bible. Our desire to know God better will ultimately lead to an attraction to the teachings that make the most sense overall, those that let us know what God's will is, those that let us know the "mind of Christ." Sufficient accuracy of doctrine will follow from our love of God. In trying to imitate our God, we will be motivated to do good for others.

Thus spreads Christianity!

[Shiwiii]

55 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Witnesses believe this even if most of us don't say it out loud because we know that even the Watch Tower Society under Russell and Rutherford and Knorr and Franz had hundreds of doctrines wrong, but we don't judge them as having been judged harshly by Jehovah.

We both know of the changes in doctrine that the wt has made through out the years, so we don't need to rehash those but rather reflect on the attitude and demand for conformity at those times. Here is where I see this as a problem, and maybe other's will not, the requirement to obey the gb or whomever was in charge at the time of said changes in doctrine. what comes to mind here is the exact scripture that bruceq quoted:

23 hours ago, bruceq said:

"If any man teaches another doctrine and does not agree with the wholesome  instruction,  which is from our Lord Jesus Christ, nor with the teaching that is in harmony with godly devotion,  ⁴  he is puffed up with pride and does not understand anything.  He is obsessed  with arguments and debates about words.  These things give rise to envy, strife, slander,  wicked suspicions, ⁵  constant disputes about minor matters by men who are corrupted in mind  and deprived of the truth." 1 Tim 6:3-5.

So you have admitted that the wt has changed doctrine, but you do not judge them or see them as been judged, but here in 1 Tim we see that the word of God has spoken about such matters in the context of what we are talking about. What I do not grasp is how anyone can align themselves to a group or group of men who's foundation is based upon incorrect teachings of doctrine. Its like saying that the Baha’i faith, if they are good people then the foundation of their beliefs will come around. Is Mormons are just good people, then after a while their doctrines will just fall into place? Catholics too? See my point.

 

 

56 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

But we know that Jehovah considers only two teachings to be of the highest priority: love of God and love of neighbor. He is not concerned with specific works, or works at all. Jehovah is concerned with our motivation, and if our motivation is love of God and love of neighbor, then proper "works" will follow naturally. 

I agree to an extent here, yes these are qualities in which God has instructed us to be. It should be second nature within our character as we serve Him through serving others. 

 

59 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

So the "word" is near to us. If we listen closely with a desire to know God better, we will hear it being preached, we will find Bibles and books that comment on the Bible. Our desire to know God better will ultimately lead to an attraction to the teachings that make the most sense overall, those that let us know what God's will is, those that let us know the "mind of Christ."

yes, I agree.