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

[Anna]

9 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

All this incessant sniping at the GB is little more than the back-seat kids of yesteryear responding to dad's rebuke: "do YOU like dad?' 'No, I don't like dad at all -he's mean. If only dad would go jump in a lake. Then we could be like Howie Hoodlimm next door and Willie Watever down the street - their dads let them do whatever they want.

Well this is not what I had in mind when I raised the question. I genuinely would like to know if I have missed something, or misunderstood something. So I thought someone might be able to explain it. When the article in the Awake first came out, I wondered about it then. Here is the whole article for reference if someone wants to read it:

Quote

The Bible’s Viewpoint
Is It Wrong to Change Your Religion?
When Avtar began studying the Bible, her Sikh family was upset. “In my homeland,” she says, “changing your religion cuts you off from the community. Even our names have religious meaning. To change your religion is viewed as rejecting your identity and disrespecting your family.”
AVTAR eventually became one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Was she wrong to change her religion? Perhaps you identify with her family. You may feel that your religion is inextricably linked with family history and culture and should not be changed.
Honoring one’s family is important. The Bible says: “Listen to your father who caused your birth.” (Proverbs 23:22) But it is more important to seek to know the truth about our Creator and his purposes. (Isaiah 55:6) Is such a search possible? If so, how important is this search to you?
Searching for Religious Truth
The world’s religions teach conflicting ideas. Logically, those teachings cannot all be true. As a result, there must be many people who, as the Bible says, “have a zeal for God; but not according to accurate knowledge.” (Romans 10:2) Yet, as recorded at 1 Timothy 2:4, the apostle Paul says that it is God’s will that “all sorts of men . . . come to an accurate knowledge of truth.” How can such accurate knowledge be found?
Consider reasons for examining the Bible. Paul, who was an inspired Bible writer, stated: “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching.” (2 Timothy 3:16) As part of your search for truth, examine the evidence that the Bible’s claim is true. Investigate for yourself its unparalleled wisdom, historical accuracy, and fulfilled prophecy.
Instead of presenting all religions as equal approaches to God, the Bible tells its readers not to believe everything they hear but to “test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God.” (1 John 4:1) For example, any teaching that truly originates with God must be in harmony with his personality, including his dominant quality of love.—1 John 4:8.
The Bible assures us that God wants us to “really find him.” (Acts 17:26, 27) Since our Creator wants us to search for truth, it cannot be wrong to act on the evidence that we find—even if this means changing our religion. But what about the problems that this may bring?
Balancing Family Loyalty
When people change their beliefs, they may decide that they will no longer share in certain religious rituals or holidays. Understandably, this can result in strong feelings within the family. Jesus acknowledged this. He told his followers: “I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a young wife against her mother-in-law.” (Matthew 10:35) Did Jesus mean that Bible teachings were designed to be an unavoidable cause of contention? No. He simply foresaw what could happen when family members react negatively to one who takes a firm stand for beliefs different from theirs.
Should family conflict be avoided at all costs? The Bible teaches that children should be obedient to parents and that wives should be in subjection to their husbands. (Ephesians 5:22; 6:1) However, it instructs those who love God to “obey God as ruler rather than men.” (Acts 5:29) Thus, at times, loyalty to God may result in your making a decision that is unpopular with some family members.
Although the Bible makes a clear distinction between true and false teachings, God allows each person the freedom to choose how he or she will respond. (Deuteronomy 30:19, 20) No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family. Does study of the Bible lead to family breakup? No. In fact, the Bible encourages a husband and wife who practice different religions to remain together as a family.—1 Corinthians 7:12, 13.
Overcoming Fears
You may fear how the community will react if you study the Bible with Jehovah’s Witnesses. Mariamma says: “My family was worried that I would not be able to find a suitable husband who could provide for me. So they opposed my Bible study.” Mariamma put her trust in Jehovah God and continued studying. (Psalm 37:3, 4) You can do the same. Rather than fear the results, consider the benefits. The Bible’s message changes lives and personalities for the better. People learn to show unselfish love for their family. Bad habits, such as verbal and physical violence and abuse of alcohol and drugs, can be overcome. (2 Corinthians 7:1) The Bible promotes such wholesome traits as loyalty, honesty, and industriousness. (Proverbs 31:10-31; Ephesians 4:24, 28) Why not study the Bible and see the benefits of applying its teachings in your life?

Awake 7/09

[Anna]

6 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

We are thinking adults ... not children .

The response is for children.

I agree with you there JTR

[TrueTomHarley]

19 minutes ago, Anna said:

Well this is not what I had in mind when I raised the question. I genuinely would like to know if I have missed something, or misunderstood something. So I thought someone might be able to explain it. When the article in the Awake first came out, I wondered about it then. Here is the whole article for reference if someone wants to read it:

Perhaps I should take the time to read it but I won't. Probably the assumption that JWs have the truth is all one needs to know. 

For 5-10 years now, the word 'disfellowship' has not been heard in public announcements. Instead, you will hear that so-and-so is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Surely if you have joined the Mormons, you are no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

What if someone drifted from Witnesses and five years later joined the Mormons. Would that trigger the announcement? Frankly, I don't know. The purpose of disfellowshipping is to separate an (in this case spiritually - not that I have anything against the Mormons per se) unwholesome influence from the congregation, but if the person does it himself, nobody chases him down. The reason I don't know is that it seldom happens. If people leave Jehovah's Witnesses, rarely do they go in for another denomination of churches. I'm sure it happens but I know first hand of no case. Oh wait - I do. It is a typical case of one who was disfellowshipped and over time came to think a religious connection good for the family, so drifted into a church less demanding than Witnesses, having lost appreciation for the things we consider spiritual gems.

My point is: it doesn't matter if there is an announcement or not. Joining another faith is, from our point of view, an apostasy, and no one in the Witness community would thereafter associate with the person - it's not that their arm has to be twisted by the GB - they know it from the scriptures. Far from being an extreme stand, it is the stand that any faith ought to take about their own members leaving for another religion. They don't do this usually, but scripturally they should.

Few people take religion seriously. They can't imagine making too much of a fuss over God, though they will go for the jugular when it comes to politics. Some churches would not erect such a barrier because they realize there is little that makes them unique and if you want to switch from one to another it is little more than swapping a Ford for a Chevy. When my dad, years ago when they were more serious about such things, wanted to marry my mom, the Catholic church said she would have to convert to Catholicism first. 'Forget that,' my dad said and they never saw him again. Having little unique to offer in a world not too spiritual in the first place, most churches won't maintain obstacles to retaining members. However, the Witness faith is absolutely unique - the combination of beneficial teachings are found no where else - and they take firm action to be separate from a world that has willfully strayed from Christianity.

So to answer your question: if they don't do it - avoid their apostates - it indicates that they have little to apostasize from. It indicates that they are sound asleep spiritually and they have acquiesced to the prevailing view that "all roads lead to heaven."

[TrueTomHarley]

This might be seen as splitting hairs but...

15 hours ago, Anna said:

God allows each person the freedom to choose how he or she will respond.

That is not to say there might not be consequences to a choice.

15 hours ago, Anna said:

No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family”

That's not exactly the point you raised. The person departing does not have to choose to leave his/her family. The family, however, might choose to no longer associate with him. They likely will - if they value what makes the truth the truth.

[TrueTomHarley]

On 8/27/2017 at 8:09 PM, Anna said:

"Really, what your beloved family member needs to see is your resolute stance to put Jehovah above anything else - including the family bond.....Do not look for excuses to associate with a disfellowshipped family member, for example, through email"

This builds off the Witness assumption, held by few others,  that not all roads lead to heaven and that, if one would survive into the new order, one must serve God according to his standards and his truths. Therefore the ultimate goal in avoiding a family member who departs for different beliefs is to help him see he must 'straighten out and fly right' spiritually, thus re-uniting the family forever spiritually and otherwise. 

Absent this outcome, it is a lose-lose for both parties - the departing one merely moves up the hour of separation which will occur anyway at cut-off for this system. 

Some of what throws a wrench into this discipline for ultimately a good cause is that, in many cases, the departing one no longer worries about living forever - on earth or anywhere else. He or she has gone atheistic and have thought the remaining few decades a cool bargain, with no sense of being cheated from all eternity. When the world embraces atheism, all sorts of paradigms shift.

[TrueTomHarley]

On 8/28/2017 at 0:39 PM, Anna said:

Well, there's at least one pre-teen that gets baptized at most conventions and assemblies, so it's nothing new, and visible to all.

I know. I have seen her and it is getting embarrassing. Someone should tell her that one time is enough.

[Anna]

When it comes down to the grass roots, it’s all a numbers game. What would kings be without subjects? Governments have been overthrown and changed by the sheer power of numbers. If there is no support for a cause or idea, it dies out. No matter how ingenious. The only being that doesn’t need numbers is God. He needs nobody’s support to exist or to be the rightful sovereign. He needs nothing at all. He is the arbiter of right and wrong, he is the ultimate lawmaker.

On the other hand the GB need  numbers because without numbers it would be just them sitting in their office and Jehovah would have to have the stones cry out instead. If NO one cooperated with a policy, then this policy would fall flat, it would just be on paper. 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. (and I am obviously not talking about what’s black and white in the Bible). So the GB are by no means unaffected by numbers. I dare to go as far as giving an example with the shaking up with regards to child sexual abuse. The society is and has changed the policies BECAUSE of numbers. The item at the convention about protecting our children was in response to the shake up. Had no one ever said anything, there would likely be no talk. Some have tried for this change decades before, but it took a government, (and one that made all the hearings transparent and available on line for anyone to reference), to make change happen. We are only human, the GB are only human, they need US to make anything “work”. The recent CO we had made an interesting remark, which when he said it made me remember something JWInsider said on here once. When I commended him for something he (the CO) said, he replied that “he just put it out there, to see if it will stick”. This is similar to saying if it gets support, we will go with it. This was in a small scale apparently what the GB do. Sometimes it is merely trial and error. If we get too strict here…we might alienate our friends… If we are too lax here we might lose them to sin….

Br. Jackson, during the inquiry into institutional child sexual abuse, conceded that yes, there are some things in our (at that time current policy), that can be changed if they don’t go against our understanding of scripture, or their principles. Why didn’t these things get changed before? Because they were never brought up, at least not by an entity that mattered.

Why, numbers matter in a congregational setting too. If everyone complains about brother so and so, you can bet something will be done, rather than if no one says anything. It’s part of one of our policies too, judicial cases are set up when they meet certain criteria, and one of these criteria is how wide spread is the case regarding the accused known, do many people know about it, or have many people complained about it….

So the point I am trying to make is that some things have and can change depending on the “notoriety” these thing get. And JWs as an organization are not immune to this. I’m still waiting for when families of disfellowshipped ones will not be “made” to shun their loved ones, but it will be left up to them whether they do so or not.

 

[Anna]

"This builds off the Witness assumption, held by few others,  that not all roads lead to heaven and that, if one would survive into the new order, one must serve God according to his standards and his truths. Therefore the ultimate goal in avoiding a family member who departs for different beliefs is to help him see he must 'straighten out and fly right' spiritually, thus re-uniting the family forever spiritually and otherwise"

Yes, I know that!.

It's the "wrench" that is what my concern is:

 

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Some of what throws a wrench into this discipline for ultimately a good cause  [bold mine] is that, in many cases, the departing one no longer worries about living forever - on earth or anywhere else. He or she has gone atheistic and have thought the remaining few decades a cool bargain, with no sense of being cheated from all eternity. When the world embraces atheism, all sorts of paradigms shift.

Exactly

[Anna]

 

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family

 

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The person departing does not have to choose to leave his/her family. The family, however, might choose to no longer associate with him. They likely will - if they value what makes the truth the truth.

If we are going to be honest about this though, those who do wish to depart are very often at a dilemma because they know that if they do, the family will- if they value what makes the truth the truth - no longer speak with him. This dilemma has caused many to try and get around it by purposefully slowly drifting, without getting disfellowshipped, or, if already disfellowshipped, plan to make a show of coming back, get re-instated, and then become inactive.  I know of both scenarios personally.  And it is becoming more and more the norm now, as people are "wising up". Now what is the point of that? 

[Anna]

9 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

My point is: it doesn't matter if there is an announcement or not. Joining another faith is, from our point of view, an apostasy, and no one in the Witness community would thereafter associate with the person - it's not that their arm has to be twisted by the GB - they know it from the scriptures

That is true to a point, and especially with regard to the JW community in general. However, with family it IS different, if we are going to be honest about it. If there was  an option whereby a family was able to associate with an apostate loved one and it was deemed OK, I am sure there would be many families who would. I can give you examples of quite a few, whose family members were raised as JW but picked another religion (my step son became a Mormon) and the other JW family members freely associate with them, some more, some less. Why, because they never chose to get baptized as JW. But really, they knew the truth, just didn't appeal to them for whatever reason. But if one gets baptized, and later on the truth loses it's appeal and they "apostatize" then that's a whole different story as we know. But really, the only difference is a vow that they broke between themselves and Jehovah. The vow wasn't made between themselves and the family, it is exclusively between them and God, so why should family loyalty/disloyalty play a part in that equation at all?

[TrueTomHarley]

As the C.O. said, we will have to see what sticks.

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

not that I have anything against the Mormons per se)

 

2 hours ago, Anna said:

my step son became a Mormon

Yikes!

I've got a thing for Mormons and an entire Mormon category on my blog, which I do not have for any other religion.

[ComfortMyPeople]

8 hours ago, Anna said:

That is true to a point, and especially with regard to the JW community in general. However, with family it IS different, if we are going to be honest about it. If there was  an option whereby a family was able to associate with an apostate loved one and it was deemed OK, I am sure there would be many families who would. I can give you examples of quite a few, whose family members were raised as JW but picked another religion (my step son became a Mormon) and the other JW family members freely associate with them, some more, some less. Why, because they never chose to get baptized as JW. But really, they knew the truth, just didn't appeal to them for whatever reason. But if one gets baptized, and later on the truth loses it's appeal and they "apostatize" then that's a whole different story as we know. But really, the only difference is a vow that they broke between themselves and Jehovah. The vow wasn't made between themselves and the family, it is exclusively between them and God, so why should family loyalty/disloyalty play a part in that equation at all?

Ezequiel 44:25

2Sam 24:14