Is there a contradiction with regard to freedom to change one's religion?

[Evacuated]

On 8/28/2017 at 6:33 PM, Anna said:

should someone who wants to quit being one of Jehovah's Witnesses be made to chose between his beliefs and the family.

One of those "cat among the pigeons" questions as the responses indicate.

Genesis chapters 2 and 3 provide a basic lesson here.

Whilst it is true to say that humans have been gifted with the ability to choose when it comes to moral obligations, they have not been given a right to excercise their choice wrongly by chosing to rebel against Jehovah. That fact is illustrated in the restriction on eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad and the sanction for disobeying that command.

At that time, Eve became disenamoured with her religion, and, fully believing that her former religion was wrong, made a choice that that impacted on her family relationships. Adam was later faced with the dilemna you have described above. In his case, it was not a matter of conscience in that he believed his religion to be wrong. (He was not deceived, 1Tim.2:14). Regardless of the technical detail, he was free to choose and that choice was excercised wrongly on that occasion, with the dire consequences we have all personally experienced.

So is anyone  "forced" to choose between religion and family in the matter of fulfilling one's dedication to Jehovah? Indeed is anyone forced to choose to accept Jehovah's direction? I suppose one could argue for this in the light of 2Cor.5:14, but really, is it not the case that the evidence and encouragement Jehovah provides to enable us to make the right decision in excercising our freedom to choose His direction is just so overwhelming that we are "compelled"? That's why the statement at Rom1:20 is indisputable.

So despite the fact that one "chooses" to make such a dedication, and may feel one should be able to abrogate later, in actual fact no one has the right to reject Jehovah's Sovereignty regardless of having the right to choose it.

Satan is expert at creating moral dilemna to put pressure on those who stray from the safety of the secret place. Ps.91:1. He tried desperatly with Jesus who hadn't strayed at all (Luke 4:9-12). Falling prey, the state of moral dilemna, tension, and conflict experienced by those who find themselves in this sad position becomes a state of partly their own creation in that, for whatever reason, they no longer wish to serve the true God on the terms they originally accepted. And yet, there is no need for this. All is not lost because, whatever their problem, they can still still make it a matter of prayer. For those who truly love Jehovah there is "no stumbling block" Ps.119:165, and, with His help, they can walk in a "roomy place" Ps.118:5.

 

[JW Insider]

18 hours ago, Anna said:

I genuinely would like to know if I have missed something, or misunderstood something. So I thought someone might be able to explain it.

I'm certainly not going to claim I can explain it. But I think that TTH is accurate. He says that:

17 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Probably the assumption that JWs have the truth is all one needs to know. 

This means that yes, absolutely, we have two sets of scales on this one, but only because we are sure we deserve a different set of scales. I don't think there is any other way to see it either. It's OK for others to change their religion, because that is obviously the point of the Greek Scriptures about conversion and baptism. But it's not OK for any of us to change our religion, because it's akin to:

• (Hebrews 6:4-6) 4 For as regards those who were once enlightened and who have tasted the heavenly free gift and who have become partakers of holy spirit 5 and who have tasted the fine word of God and powers of the coming system of things, 6 but have fallen away, it is impossible to revive them again to repentance, because they nail the Son of God to the stake again for themselves and expose him to public shame.
• (2 Peter 2:20-22) 20 Certainly if after escaping from the defilements of the world by an accurate knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they get involved again with these very things and are overcome, their final state has become worse for them than the first. 21 It would have been better for them not to have accurately known the path of righteousness than after knowing it to turn away from the holy commandment they had received. 22 What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog has returned to its own vomit, and the sow that was bathed to rolling in the mire.”

So, scripturally, there appears to be no problem with the belief itself that this is only a one-way street. Of course, this does not mean it is ethical to imply that it would be as easy to leave the JWs as it is to become one. We do make it difficult, and we do use emotional blackmail, but we believe we are justified. We believe that the "tough love" of shunning will shame people into coming back and that if we win back a brother through shaming that we have thus protected their prospect for eternal life. But should we tell people this before they are baptized, and perhaps show them a video presentation about the worst-case scenario? Should we justify it with the fact that many other people also shun others whether for feelings of religious superiority or sometimes just feelings of cultural or supposed moral superiority -- or sometimes just purely for emotional blackmail based on rationalizing juvenile behavior? 

In my view, the answer is yes, absolutely. We should show new converts how we shame people. We should be PROUD of everything we do with respect to our preaching and practice. If we think anything we do or teach should remain in the dark, then that can only mean we are ashamed of it. We would be hypocritical not to show it and explain it. We can tell people we think that the "love" behind shunning is worth it in the long run.

• (Hebrews 12:11) True, no discipline seems for the present to be joyous, but it is painful; yet afterward, it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.

If we are not proud enough of a practice to explain it up front as part of the conversion process, and explained by an elder prior to baptism, then, of course, we should change the practice.

Also, you are probably aware that I don't think we handle shunning in a completely biblical way. And another way to look at the verses above (about returning to vomit, re-nailing the Son of God), is that they are not about any specific religious organization, but about a specific type of personal relationship with Jehovah that is rejected.

[Evacuated]

6 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

But should we tell people this before they are baptized, and perhaps show them a video presentation about the worst-case scenario?

You mean...you don't?

[TrueTomHarley]

I'll go along with much of what you've said, but draw the line at some scenarios that your yourself declared unlikely:

17 hours ago, Anna said:

If EVERY member of JWs decided they would no longer cooperate with certain policies, where would those policies be? Of course this is not likely ever to happen, but the point I am trying to make is that many policies exist only because of the support they get

I'd be very hesitant to engage in civil disobedience to theocratic headship. If history is any guide, maybe the earth would open up.

Instead, I've chosen the role to defend whatever the GB does. It doesn't mean I don't acknowledge it might be done differently or that they can't make mistakes - they've acknowledges that themselves; I just don't feel its my role to push for changes. If they decide to do things differently, I'll spin positively that new policy too. It's the role I have chosen.

There's a lot of urging here that the GB should do this or the GB should do that. Is that permissible? Who knows? All I know is that I am uncomfortable taking part in it, so I will not. I see no biblical precedent for it and much biblical precedent that would discourage (if not forbid) it. It is 'leadership by the people' instead of being 'taught by Jehovah.' It is the Western model of journalism - 'exposing' errors that it assumes no responsibility to fix and no responsibility to deal with the consequences of stirring up discontent among persons not previously discontent.

Do they arbitrarily decide things at Bethel without input from 'the people?' I wouldn't say that. Each week every circuit overseer in the world sends in a report from the congregation he has served. Okay, okay, one could say many are 'yes men' and all are loyal, but it is not a given that an organization send out its agitators to represent it. The COs, especially the more experienced ones, can be trusted to give input about whatever is affecting the congregations, including PR matters. It's for them to do it, not me, and if I was to do it, it wouldn't be in a public forum. Again, it is 'taught by Jehovah,' and not 'leadership of the people' because leadership of the people does not always lead to fine ends. It is largely an article of faith in today's world that it does, but a perusal of history shows that it only occasionally does.

The truth faith is the true faith. It is a challenge piloting it in an increasingly irreligious world in which the very notion of keeping the congregation clean is spun as a negative, as a scheme to 'control' people. The world pushes hard for the viewpoint that, if you must have religion, make it bland and let it not interfere with serious things of life. The GB has its hands full coping and they are overall doing well in catering to God and not just the individual. I won't tell them where they are going wrong. How do I know? For every line of information I have, they have one hundred.

[JW Insider]

5 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

You mean...you don't?

The most recent persons I studied with who symbolized their dedication through baptism were the father and mother of two children, a pre-teen boy and a much younger girl. We absolutely discussed what baptism means in terms of their association and the potential for disfellowshipping. In fact, we spent hours on the subject, because the mother was a smoker, who needed a lot of moral support to help her quit, and she was (and still is) allowed to call the house any time day or night getting through the tough time she had in giving up the addiction. In fact, they put off baptism for at least an extra 6 months to be sure she was completely over it. But our studies also included a discussion of what can happen to children, too, and the pressure we can end up unknowingly putting on children and the emotional pain that could result if the decision of a child is not really his (or her) own decision, but primarily a way for the child to please their parents.

So up to a point, I do, but I have probably over-used or even misused this verse:

• (Matthew 10:33-37) 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will also disown him before my Father who is in the heavens. 34 Do not think I came to bring peace to the earth; I came to bring, not peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 Indeed, a man’s enemies will be those of his own household. 37 Whoever has greater affection for father or mother than for me is not worthy of me; and whoever has greater affection for son or daughter than for me is not worthy of me.

I'm wondering if this is really all that applicable to the variations of choices people make today. If their children grow up and become atheists, for example, are the parents really required to initiate that division? I read the verse carefully, now, and realize that we are not the ones creating this division and creating enemies. We are the ones who continue to love our enemies, the same way Jehovah continues to make it rain on both the righteous and unrighteous.

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I'd be very hesitant to engage in civil disobedience to theocratic headship. If history is any guide, maybe the earth would open up.

I came late to this discussion, knowing that my viewpoint on this particular subject is based on what might seem a bit radical to some. So I apologize in advance for the opinions to follow:

I wouldn't suggest "civil disobedience" either, but to your point, the earth didn't open up when Rutherford successfully attempted his own hostile takeover of the Watch Tower Society from 1916 to 1919 (technically, until 1931). After all, he went directly against the leadership of Russell and illegally went against the leadership of the majority, physically shutting that majority out, until he could put his own majority in place. But this is another one of those potential contradictions of a similar nature to the contradiction that forms the basis for this topic. We forgive him for bending the law and for several ethics violations because we are sure that, in the long run, he had the "truer" religion compared to those he outmaneuvered.

Yet, this also suggests that the 'guide from history' has more to do with how we respond to the true Leader, the greater Moses, Jesus Christ. Thinking of men as effectively taking the place of Jesus as head is merely an expedience for modern organizational purposes, and is not related to theocracy, which is rule by God. If a doctrine shows up differently in God's Word from the way it shows up from the GB, then we surely have nothing to fear from merely obeying God as ruler rather than men. That's the true definition of theocracy.

But we don't initiate discord, either. That's for the exact same reason we accept and respect the GB in the first place. We appreciate that the role they take on is for keeping order and for efficiently carrying out our ministry in an organized manner. So we gladly subject ourselves to the decisions of an organizational Governing Body. I don't see why anyone would object to that. Besides, it's working; the worldwide ministry is becoming increasingly more organized and efficient through this arrangement.

These men also maintain "doctrinal order" by taking on the role of "guardians of the doctrine." This can be a very good thing. Teaching materials, presentation materials, publication content, dramas, videos, convention talks are coordinated and this produces less confusion. When a change is made it is often highlighted and even if not, there are usually efficient ways for us to discover and explain the change. We appreciate that the work done to find the support for these doctrines scripturally is taken very seriously and we have no major doctrines without some Biblical reason for it, even if that reason (for a former doctrine) was based on an admitted misunderstanding. 

I won't use this topic as a place to show the kind of trouble that can happen if the "guarding" part is taken more seriously than fixing any misunderstandings, but I think that should be obvious, from our own history. But the point is that it should not be difficult for any of us to rattle off anywhere from 10 to 20 doctrinal changes and changes in procedures that came about through "public pressure" even though this public pressure was not well-known to most of us, nor was it any kind of civil disobedience.

I can think of a couple cases where it really was something like civil disobedience from the rank-and-file Bethelites, for example, but I am referring primarily to the public exposure of certain embarrassing doctrines by ex-JWs, or the pressure of civil courts and tax courts (US, UK, Belgium, Australia) and scrutiny of doctrine by psychologists, surgeons and law enforcement. Add to this an unknown number of letters that came in from Witnesses whose questions and objections really have been taken seriously over the years. It must be a lot more than some Witnesses and others here would believe.

[TrueTomHarley]

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

We forgive him for bending the law and for several ethics violations because we are sure that, in the long run, he had the "truer" religion compared to those he outmaneuvered.

Had he lost maybe we would all be wearing beards and the ones shaving like you and me would have heard about it. 

It's before my time. Rutherford to Knorr went smoothly enough. And I don't think there was turmoil from Knorr to a GB, though Witness growls that she was cheated.

[Anna]

On 9/1/2017 at 9:53 PM, Anna said:

So I guess no one wants to have a go at solving this apparent discrepancy? Anyone?? @JW Insider, @Gone Fishing, @TrueTomHarley

Thank you all for your responses! Glad to see you're back from fishing @Gone Fishing, I thought you might have drowned!  I have just been so busy lately and although I have read everyones comments I have not had the chance to reply. I need to read them again, properly and carefully, before I respond,  and right now I have just too much going on. Looking forward to it though . Thanks again!

[Anna]

On 9/3/2017 at 4:09 AM, Gone Fishing said:

At that time, Eve became disenamoured with her religion, and, fully believing that her former religion was wrong, made a choice that that impacted on her family relationships. Adam was later faced with the dilemna you have described above.

That is a good parallel and I know what you are trying to say. Basically that we need to show loyalty to God by rejecting individuals who have broken their vow of loyalty. But I can't hep but attempt to punch a few holes in this. Well, probably just one: Does it mean that if Adam wanted to keep loyal, he would have not only rejected the fruit but also Eve? 

As we know, after they had both sinned they lived together for centuries thereafter and had a number of children. This could be likened to what happens if one of the marriage partners is disfellowshipped, this does not dissolve the marriage, and indeed things should go along as normal. (I wonder,  if Adam had rejected the fruit, would Jehovah have allowed Eve to live out her imperfect life as she did originally?) Also if a minor still living in the household is disfellowshipped, the child is not shunned. But as we know, like the turn of a switch, the relationship changes dramatically once the child leaves home. I just cannot wrap my head around this seemingly superficial handling of something that can be very traumatic, mainly for the innocent party. Most of all, that the choice of treatment of disfellowshipped individuals is not left up to the innocent party, but that the innocent party is told (many times over and over) not to have ANY contact with the disfellowshipped family member regardless if the family member has ceased sinning but just does not want to be JW anymore.  So...in line with the question "should someone who wants to quit being one of Jehovah's Witnesses be made to chose between his beliefs and the family" the answer is NO,  but the  reality is different, if they want to resume their relationship with the family they have to get re-instated, or if they have changed their beliefs they better keep it a secret to avoid getting disfellowshipped and thus shunned. Stuck between a rock and a hard place. 

I noticed something in our FAQ that could be very misleading to someone who didn't know any better: "What of a man who is disfellowshipped but whose wife and children are still Jehovah’s Witnesses? The religious ties he had with his family change, but blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings continue".  https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning

The funny thing is, in reality most Witnesses will keep their association with family who are  living a dubious life style but are not disfellowshipped to a minimum anyway, without needing any prompts from the Slave. There is a couple in our hall who have drifted and no longer go to meetings. They smoke pot and celebrate their kid's birthdays. Their parents are not buddy buddy with them at all and keep association to a minimum, but they DO communicate normally (which they wouldn't/couldn't if they were dfd.) and they have the grand children over whenever, and take that opportunity to tell them about Jehovah and take them to the meetings. That couple is as good as disfellowshipped, and so they are held at arms length without having anyone tell them how to act.

This is not all I wanted to write really and it's rather haphazard as I am still really strapped for time but I wanted to at least say something....

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

On 9/7/2017 at 4:09 PM, Anna said:

Thank you all for your responses! Glad to see you're back from fishing @Gone Fishing, I thought you might have drowned

Sell a man a fish ... and you feed him for a day.

TEACH a man to fish .. and you lose a steady customer.

Isn't there a scripture about " ... and no one will say "Know Jehovah", because everyone WILL know Jehovah ..." (paraphrased)?

... then people will have to get REAL jobs.

( merely a random rant ... it IS Friday ... time to punish more innocent people for what their relatives and friends have done...)

1 hour ago, Anna said:

But as we know, like the turn of a switch, the relationship changes dramatically once the child leaves home. I just cannot wrap my head around this seemingly superficial handling of something that can be very traumatic, mainly for the innocent party.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

.

The thought just occurred to me .... under the current "rules", if my name was James Stalin, or James Hitler ... there would be no congregational sanctions against me going to a family reunion with my older brother Josef Stalin, or Adolph Hitler .... or even  spending the weekend at their Dachas or Fortresses.

I am 70 years old .... but I am expected to treat my real (theoretical) sister who was baptized in the 2nd grade, at 8 years old,  like dirt, and WORSE .... completely shunning her ...  when she turns 50 and decides she made a mistake getting baptized so young, or makes other mistakes common to  humans.

If I don't ... well ... uh .... you know ....... (makes throat cutting gesture with finger).

It is more cruel than even Ah can stomach.

(Blood is thicker than water .... but apparently not as thick as wielding and consolidating political power ... )

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Ferengi Rule of Acquisition No. 281: ( Ferengi are a species from StarTrek that was particularly highlighted in Deep Space 9. Their religion is commerce and their society is determined by profit. )

281.) Blood is thicker than water, but harder to sell.