Anna

It's ok, you dot need to dig up any references, I'm quite familiar with the ins and outs of this subject. However, I thought we were talking about being pushed out if you don't believe the overlapping generation theory. You are still misunderstanding me though. I was saying that the overlapping generation theory IS an opinion.

If it's the same thread, then I have not seen any evidence for being pushed out for having difficulty with the overlapping generation. You misunderstood, I was referring to the overlapping generation being an opinion. I thought that is what you were talking about.

Well, my opinion on that is different to yours. You can get pushed out for a lot of things that you would get pushed out in any other institution when you don't follow the rules you agreed to. But you make it sound like you get pushed out for having your own thought on something. But this is off topic here. It has been discussed elsewhere. Of course, I'm with you on that one I understand the definition is an opinion. But that's also discussed in another topic....

People in those days were so "superstitious" and gullible to believing a lot of things. One can understand how the Mormon church got started....and maybe Christian Scientists, but I cannot say for sure because I don't know anything about them. Russell was quite unique in a way with his "open minded" and reasonable attitude.

I know this question is not addressed to me, but if I may, I think that that believing that kind of communication would be akin to believing the angel Moroni giving the golden tablets to Joseph Smith. As I said in my previous comment, I thought this kind of communication ceased after the last of the apostles died. That is why I find the WT quote very atypical and a bit out of place.......and that is why I can safely say the story about angel Moroni is goobledygook or else it's directly from Satan...

Well, not everybody is like that are they. But I have to admit when you gotta sleep you gotta sleep...

What are you getting all all upset about. Surely there is nothing wrong with information for anyone who wants to contribute on ways how to do it?

Come on JTR, get with the spirit of solidarity. How do you think it made the friends in Russia feel when they knew every one of their friends outside of Russia sent a personal letter to their country's leaders in protest?

My step son is a Mormon and they tithe 10% and here are links where you can read up about the topic of passing plates http://www.churchmarketingsucks.com/2009/03/passing-the-plate-poll-results/ http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/2009/march/passing-plate.html The only reason why passing the plate might peter out in the future is because less and less people carry paper money and more will want to pay by card or check. Tithing no doubt will stay for some denominations.

What you are talking about is not what the WT is talking about. Completely different topic.

Well, I don't feel this is an obey or else scenario at all. As you see, there is an allowance for personal opinion/understanding. As for those who thought it was ok to take some blood fractions or organs prior to the change, well as you say, it doesn't matter now, they're dead (I presume you mean because of old age) so the point is, in the end we all must make our OWN decisions, and not blame the WT for them if we later change our mind....

@AllenSmith I don't know why you quoted most of the the WT. The problem is not when the resurrection to heaven was to have taken place but these assumptions: and Both these statements are speculative. This is basically saying that Rutherford was contacted by one of the resurrected anointed and told (in a vision or a dream perhaps?) who the great crowd was. Is this likely, considering that Jehovah does not communicate like this with anyone on earth today? It makes no logical sense. We know the Slave is not inspired, and we also know communication with the spirit world, except with Jehovah, through Jesus, by means of prayer, is forbidden. So the idea about communication between the anointed in heaven and earth TODAY is not Scriptural at all. The only thing that leads us today is the holy spirit, Jehovah's active force, and as we know, anyone can ask for it and receive it, and it is not a person.

Yup, such is the pull of the opposite sex!

That is ridiculous of course especially when that person was still known to be living immorally. But it is a far cry from discretely keeping in touch with someone who albeit being disfellowshipped, is no longer practicing what they were disfellowshipped for. And that's the situation I'm talking about. However, the video even condemns that. I know what you are trying to say, but clearly there are some things that are happening that are apparently being allowed that Jehovah has definitely not put in place...think of anything that has had a detrimental effect on some, for example faulty child abuse policies we have had in the past. Jehovah allows mistakes, and eventually these mistakes are rectified. These mistakes help us become stronger if we don't allow them to break us. Iron sharpens iron. I agree with most of your reasoning and thank you for taking your time to address this issue. It helped to put things into proper perspective. I am not going to let this issue become my Achilles heel. I know what I feel in my gut (obviously based on a Bible trained conscience) and I have basically done this most of my life as a JW, and many times my gut feelings were proved correct. I am glad I do this because I will never blame the "truth" or the Elders or anyone because whatever I do, it is because I choose to do it (or not do it), not because someone said I should or shouldn't. And this case will be the same. So one day IF our stance on disfellowshipped loved ones changes, I will not become resentful because I will have been doing what I felt was right anyway..... As regards the answer to the original topic for discussion "is there a contradiction with regard to freedom to change one's religion"? I think JW Insider nailed it when he said that: "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 and 2 Peter 2:20-22 So, scripturally, there appears to be no problem with the belief itself that this is only a one-way street".

I know. This is the craziest idea ever put in writing in any of our magazines. When I read it at the time I couldn't believe it...especially when used to support the identity of the great crowd and in turn to support the resurrection occurring between 1914 and 1935. I wonder who came up with that idea and how it could have been sanctioned. This is the kind of reasoning I would expect in Russell's day, not 10 years ago! I think I've already had a rant about this somewhere, if yes, sorry for the repetition

Precisely. But it gets a little more complicated because people can be mislead into thinking something else to what can actually happen in practice as is evident in the answers to FAQ https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/resign/#?insight[search_id]=475f2def-a58d-4618-aec5-5b7ebdc2505e&insight[search_result_index]=1 and https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/ Interesting

JTR, where we differ in our view point is that I do not believe that shunning disfellowshipped ones is being used for the consolidation of arbitrary political power and to generate fear among the cowardly. I have no reason to believe that. (Just like I have no reason to believe Br. Herd would wear a 25K Rolex, knowing there are friends out there struggling on the brink of poverty). I believe those who impose these things genuinely believe it is the right thing to do. That does not mean I am going to agree with it, nor do as they say, and I will let Jehovah be the Judge.

Very good point!

Come back to me on that after you've seen the video Loyally Uphold Jehovah’s Judgments—Shun Unrepentant Wrongdoers .

Ummmm...something tells me this is not the correct Christian attitude

I definitely don't want to be doing that. But can you see the difference between the 1981 counsel and the 1974 counsel I see a big difference in the spirit of the admonition. (And especially so after watching the video) Very true, and I feel the same way Yes, true of course. That would be something the family who wishes to have contact with a disfellowshiped one would keep in mind. It would not be something that would be flaunted. But that's the thing, I do not feel that I am running ahead or criticising anything that Jehovah has put in place, because I do no think Jehovah has put it in place! Not in the way it is being applied NOW, as per the video you will see on Tuesday, or whenever your midweek meeting is. (I know you are probably stating this generally and not specifically pointing at me, although if the cap fits it should be worn). I do like your example of Abraham and Sarah. I have a feeling it's not the actual discipline of "excommunication" that they have a problem with, I think it's the right to associate with loved ones, regardless of what they may have done. Again, the WT of 74 points that out too: " Such a one has a natural right to visit his blood relatives and his offspring" One can exercise that right whichever way one wants. Someone may not want to have anything to do with a relative who is a cold blooded murderer. But then there are others who will stick to their offspring regardless. However, we, JWs, are being told not to have anything to do with an "excommunicated" loved one. One of the questions to the video is "What helped them (Sonia's parents) to remain loyal? " Answer paraphrased from the video: "What helped them to remain loyal to Jehovah all these years I was disfellowshipped was the Bible account of Aaron...how he was told not to mourn over his sons who were killed by Jehovah to show the entire nation they supported Jehovah’s judgement". See how the entire spirit has changed? Now the right of blood relatives to see each other has become "pretend they don't even exist". The other question was " How did their loyalty to Jehovah benefit Sonja"? Answer paraphrased from the video: "They knew, if they had associated with me even a little, just to check on me, that small dose of association might have satisfied me. It could make me think that there was no need to return to Jehovah". I have always felt there was something wrong with returning to Jehovah so one could associate with family again. Matt 22:37 We know Sonia was disfelowshiped for more than 15 years. One of her children looks like they could be at least 12. We are never told whether Sonia married her children's father and there is not a single mention of Eric again (the guy she got disfellowshiped for) She may have continued to live an immoral life, and after Eric had a dozen boyfriends, smoked pot and had each of the two children by a different man. But somehow, I have a feeling it would have been mentioned that she continued living an immoral life. What seems most likely though is that she married the man with whom she had the children. We also see that the grandparents had nothing to do with the grandchildren as this would have been indicated somewhere. When they started going to the KH they all sat at the back in the second school like outcasts. That was made clear. It doesn't even indicate that the children celebrated Christmas or birthdays. All in all it seems that Sonia's only "crime" all those years was that she remained disfellowshipped because she had not made formal steps to come back to the congregation.

I did a lot of extensive research on the Mormons because I didn't want to speak in ignorance. I also went directly to their website as I wanted to hear it from the horse's mouth, much to the chagrin of one sister who chastised me for it, saying she only looks to our publications on any topic. I have no idea where she thinks our publications get their info from. In any case, if I were to become a Mormon because of looking at their website I would deserve to become a Mormon! It is a crazy religion, not crazy in the sense of weird practices so much, but rather crazy what people will believe with that kind of a foundation. It is so obviously fake, the charlatan that Joseph Smith was. And yet it goes to show that people are willing to believe anything. I could start my own religion of the pink flying slippers and get a following. Even with a name like that. Angel Moroni, give me a break.

I agree with the sentiments of most of what you are saying, based the scriptures you cited etc. It is a difficult situation, and with so many variables, no one solution can fit all perfectly obviously. To sum it all up, and I think I have mentioned it before, what I have difficulty with is the way family members are basically told to shun their loved ones. In the video (we will all see at our midweek meeting this week) the mother has not had any contact with her daughter for 15 years, and has not seen her grandchildren probably ever (although this is not mentioned, we are evidently led to assume it). I really feel that no man has the right to order others what to do in this regard, and as for the interpretation that it is Jehovah's will, well I guess I have a difficulty with that too. The WT 74/8/1 "Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshiped Ones" was the best article regarding this subject. I wasn't ever aware of it at the time of its publication, as I was too young, but I came across it in the WT CD library when I was researching this topic. Evidently our view has changed and become a lot more extreme. I hasten to think this was due to the shake up in 79 with GB member Ray Franz etc. He was eventually disfellowshipped because of associating with a disfellowshipped person (not because of apostasy). It seems because they had made an example of Ray, they also had to carry it through with the rest of us. I think @JW Insidermay have some thoughts on this as he was in Bethel at the time. You can see what I mean when you read the 74 article compared with what came after 79 to the present. Here is an extract from it: Par. 21 As to disfellowshiped family members (not minor sons or daughters) living outside the home, each family must decide to what extent they will have association with such ones. This is not something that the congregational elders can decide for them. What the elders are concerned with is that “leaven” is not reintroduced into the congregation through spiritual fellowshiping with those who had to be removed as such “leaven.” Thus, if a disfellowshiped parent goes to visit a son or daughter or to see grandchildren and is allowed to enter the Christian home, this is not the concern of the elders. Such a one has a natural right to visit his blood relatives and his offspring. Similarly, when sons or daughters render honor to a parent, though disfellowshiped, by calling to see how such a one’s physical health is or what needs he or she may have, this act in itself is not a spiritual fellowshiping. Now that's what I'm talking about. It makes so much more sense, and I hate to think that this extreme clamp down we have now could have something to do with "politics" rather than spirituality. There are always reasons for change that we may not be aware of, and sometimes they may actually have little to do with the Bible.

Agree Good observation, and I have noticed that too. I agree with this completely. And of course as well as it being a protective arrangement AND a restorative arrangement as well. Personally I have known quite a number of those who were disfellowshipped and have come back. Those ones are usually those who have committed some sort of sin pertaining to a "weakness of the flesh" but still believe we have the Truth. As soon as they put their fleshly side in order they are soon reinstated. But "my" problem is with the minority of cases where although having put their fleshly side in order, they no longer desire to preach to others or go to meetings twice a week (for whatever reason...losing faith etc.. etc.) These ones have no chance of being reinstated because one of the prerequisites is meeting attendance. Maybe one day they do wake up. My sister in law was gone for 20 years! She was disfellowshipped for having sex with her boyfriend (who later became her husband). But her being gone for so long was mainly circumstantial because she had moved to a country where Witnesses are banned and her husband was strongly opposed. Then her husband died and she moved back to the USA and was able to take steps for re-instatement. Interestingly, my mother in law never cut ties with her and even went to see her in the other country several times when she was still disfellowshipped. So when my sister in law applied for reinstatement it wasn't so she could associate with her mother, because she was already doing that, but it was because she genuinely wanted to return to the Christian congregation, and to Jehovah (although she said she had never lost her relationship with Jehovah). Now if my mother in law had followed the Slave's instructions as per the video where the daughter returns after 15 years, she would have not spoken to her daughter for 20 years, nor seen her grandchildren. I cannot put my finger on it, but something tells me this is not right, it goes against natural human affection and decency that we were created with. I cannot help but wonder if it's right for US to judge the situation by the standard of Aaron's sons who were directly put to death by Jehovah, and the Israelites who were to stone their own children to death for dissidency. Things are different now. Isn't Jehovah going to punish individuals himself at Armageddon? As you know, I have nothing at all against the congregation being kept clean, what I have an issue with is the family being told how to act. I feel it should be at the discretion of the family how they handle the transgressions of a loved one. I like that