Do homosexual acts on the part of a married person constitute a Scriptural ground for divorce, freeing the innocent mate to remarry?

[JW Insider]

5 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

However, I can't see those affected as being a high number in view of both the consequences, and the short time period of error. Not that that reduces the effects for any individuals caught in the confusion of course, albeit for a few months.

I suspect that while Fred Franz was almost surely both the writer and the "approval checker" of the 1956 article, that he kept his distance from the Aid Book project. This does not mean that the information in the Aid Book , "Divorce" article (written likely at least one year before section A-E was released at an assembly in 1969) came directly from R.Franz. It was obviously copied very closely from the 1956 article. It was also true that R.Franz says that, when working on the Aid Book, he did not think he had the leeway to make changes to the current doctrines, but he also admits to not even having any thought or inclination to discuss changes to doctrines until after such questions were brought to the Governing Body around 1972 and after.

And even though he was not a member of the Governing Body, but just a new guy in the Writing Department, I still kind of "blame" him for being given an opportunity to research through these topics again, and not to question them immediately and strongly. All of us are supposed to question everything, and he appears to have been given a wonderful opportunity from at least 1968 to 1971, and yet spent more of his "political capital" on the new elder arrangement. Returning to an elder arrangement like the one that Rutherford had opposed was a good thing, of course. But I think he was in a good position to push for many more changes and he evidently never considered these things closely. Of course, I have the same issue with the other brothers who just let things go along as tradition had said, but most of the others were not given an assignment with the leeway to just let the facts fall where the Scriptures lead. He says that this is what Fred Franz told him he should do, and there are a couple of blatant areas where he fell short in this assignment.

[JW Insider]

11 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:

Is that where we are on this now?

Pretty much. Excellent summary.

[Srecko Sostar]

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

they did not sing, or have Bibles, to pretend that they were not a religion.

- No Bible readings, No singing songs, No giving prayer to JHVH -

According to 1 century Bible reports, this sort of private and public manifestations are "prove" that person is Christian, Gods servant. If whole congregations, generations of people, for decades were not doing so, what they has been? Officially and in reality- "Cultural group, society, association,volunteers". Religious? or Secular? :)) 

But that is of no importance after so many years, for me or some of you. What is important is Hypocrisy from "main church body" aka GB aka FDS aka Board of Directors aka elders aka Kings and Priests or what ever name they have and gives to themselves or we gives to them, in the past or today.

  be happy, don't worry, in future paradise all will be happy and no one will asking questions as we doing today. people will eat plenty of fruits and vegetables, all will be emotionally and mentally balanced and all will be perfect as  today because JW and GB have The Highest Moral Standards - from always, or as my dear Anna said - "we have ALWAYS had the higher moral ground, right since our start. "

hehe

   

[JW Insider]

44 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:

Individuals divorced, remarried on the basis of previous erroneous advice are to be viewed as irreprehensible.

This brings up a topic that often comes up worldwide on the topic of having married or remarried incorrectly based on previous incorrect understanding of divorce and remarriage when the erroneous advice came from a previous religion or culture. The basic idea is to require no changes if the current legal state of a (non-polygamous) marriage is difficult to change. But difficulties in making legal changes after one become a Witness (after an improper divorce and remarriage) will not make the person guilty (or at least reprehensible) of on-going adultery as it would if the person made an improper choice as a Witness, but there are still levels of privilege in their congregational assignments to be considered and various requirements that are suggested for elders to look into. Also:

*** w83 3/15 p. 31 Honor Godly Marriage! ***

• Those who acted on the basis of the knowledge they had at the time are not to be criticized. Nor would this affect the standing of a person who in the past believed that a mate’s perverted sexual conduct within marriage amounted to porneia and, hence, obtained a divorce and is now remarried.

This cannot begin to cover, however, several cases of those (sisters, usually)  who wanted to divorce a husband whom they discovered to have been homosexual. In the 1950's through part of the 1980's and beyond, marrying a sister was considered to be the best solution for Witnesses who are homosexual but are sure they will never act upon their sexual desires. Elders even recommended it. But then, even after infidelity on the part of the husband, and after the husband was usually disfellowshipped, the innocent sister could still never marry a Christian husband for the rest of her life, potentially. This is the primary type of case I referred to when I mentioned to tromboneck that there are still persons living for whom this injustice, even if later corrected, had affected their lives and is still affecting their lives. The problem actually lasted for decades, not months.

[Srecko Sostar]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The Bible does not permit divorce just for any reason

When you say Bible, what part of Bible support this reason as only one ? and what part of Bible support divorce for more other reasons and not only adultery  

Because JHVH principles are not in Jesus words only but in words by other also. I am sure that what Jesus said have more power than those of Peter, Paul or Moses. But if we want be strict, than all bible words are of the same power because God is source (no matter when Paul said , "I think", "In my judgement" and then give some counsel, advice, instruction). What would happen, If GB or any of us, want to use some "principles" in some situation from OT and some "principles" in some situation from NT?

Can you imagine or maybe you know for such examples dear JW Insider? 

[Melinda Mills]

 What would happen, If GB or any of us, want to use some "principles" in some situation from OT and some "principles" in some situation from NT?

====

An example is procuring of tattoos. I think I should apply to myself what the law says about Jehovah not liking tattoos. 

(Leviticus 19:28) 28 “‘You must not make cuts in your flesh for a dead person, and you must not make tattoo markings on yourselves. I am Jehovah.

 

[Melinda Mills]

Angels were cast down from heaven for unnatural sex and disloyalty to Jehovah.  That should say something.  They will not be forgiven.

[Srecko Sostar]

9 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:

An example is procuring of tattoos. I think I should apply to myself what the law says about Jehovah not liking tattoos. 

(Leviticus 19:28) 28 “‘You must not make cuts in your flesh for a dead person, and you must not make tattoo markings on yourselves. I am Jehovah.

Leviticus 19:27 New International Version (NIV)

²⁷ “‘Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

Leviticus 21:5 New International Version (NIV)

⁵ “‘Priests must not shave their heads or shave off the edges of their beards or cut their bodies.

WHY GB JWorg forbid beards to male members???? when Bible said opposite. DO NOT SHAVE BEARD :))))

Dear Melinda, context of your Leviticus talks about customs connected about/to dead. Today, tattoos and piercing  have other symbolism, we need to ask particular person about reason why he/she doing marks on body. But no matter of what reason somebody may have, it is not on us to judge him.

   Romans 14 “Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.”

Romans 14 

"As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. ...

 

 

[Srecko Sostar]

10 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:

unnatural sex

angels sex and humans sex - two different stuff ... i think

[Evacuated]

On 30/11/2017 at 4:38 PM, JW Insider said:

persons living for whom this injustice, even if later corrected, had affected their lives and is still affecting their lives.

For the sake of clarity:

Do you mean, for example, persons (brothers or sisters) who got secularly divorced, but who were  "left on the shelf" unecessarily due to incorrect views on what constituted fornication? The later correction of those views might have restored their marriage eligibility technically, but their "shelf life" may have expired.

And do you include others who might have been driven to real fornication and, if unrepentant, experienced congregational discipline, all due (in part) to the holding of the same incorrect views? They may have decided to "throw in their (spiritual) towels" as a result of the rule changes.

There may be other examples, but how many do you think were affected? 10s, 100s, 1000s? And how many remain affected still today?

[Melinda Mills]

I said that is how I would apply to myself, was not speaking of how others apply it.  If I believe Jehovah does not like something I will not do it.  Not judging others. That's their business.

[JW Insider]

8 hours ago, Gone Away said:

There may be other examples, but how many do you think were affected? 10s, 100s, 1000s? And how many remain affected still today?

I think you have a pretty good sense of the continuing effect based on specific examples, although there are others, too. Unfortunately an effect that might be more pervasive, but less tangible, is an overall sense of trustworthiness of spiritual direction. This one thing shouldn't be a big factor, but I wonder if this specific issue, for example, hasn't weighed on the minds of even the current GB, who have only recently decided to admit explicitly that the spiritual food and decisions they make are sometimes rotten or wrong, respectively, or that they might even depend on others for spiritual direction. The creation of too rigid a legalistic hierarchy produces:

• followers who won't think enough for themselves, on the one hand,
• and could also tend to produce those who believe that 100% conformity to Jehovah's requirements is not all that important, from another perspective. (Based on this sense that it must not have mattered that much to Jehovah if all marriages are clean in his eyes, as long as the current incorrect rules of the WTS were followed at the time.)

I can't guess at the number of "cases," of course, but I know of one specific case I dealt with in my previous congregation, and one in my current. I can't extrapolate from a couple of anecdotal examples, but I can't imagine that I know of the only two examples in the whole world, either. What if there is one in every congregation? What if the examples that come to the surface are only a small representation of the examples that never come to the surface?

Referring more to the second bullet point above, I can speak to a noticeable lack of interest in the spiritual direction received among a large swath of active Witnesses that I don't recall as much in times past. Perhaps it's just my projected nostalgia speaking here, though. I think you, for example, are likely one of those who take a stronger interest in the details of each of our doctrines -- sometimes even their historical development, up to a point. I see very little of that now.  In some ways I see it being even more discouraged. Taking an interest in commenting upon our doctrines, except with catechism-style answers to canned questions, is looked down upon -- even as if to say: "How dare anyone have the presumptuousness to comment upon doctrines that are already spelled out for us." Yet, that attitude of speaking up out of an overriding interest in our spiritual relationship with Jehovah, is no doubt what pushed the correction in thinking on this very subject in the original post.