Anna
-
Posts
4,682 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
98
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
World Wiki
Events
Everything posted by Anna
-
The apparent implication of this statement was clarified in the dialogue that followed, (immediately after that statement - so there cannot be any confusion as to what exactly was meant) as I have already indicated above.- 108 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- disfellowshipping
- gb
- (and 5 more)
-
That may be true, but it is an exclusively personal thing, nothing that's taught by the org.
-
Is this the part you are referring to: Q. " If someone no longer wants to be known as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, they must then disassociate; is that right? A. Again, please, if they want to take the action of doing that. But, of course, they have total freedom. If they don't want to apply to officially be removed as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, they can tell anyone they want that they are no longer a Jehovah's Witness". I do not see anything about no repercussions. In fact in context of the rest of the dialogue, Jackson makes it clear that there MAY be repercussions, depending on the circumstances: Q. "Leaving that to one side, the point is, for example, if the elders visited and found the person to be living in sin in the eyes of the Jehovah's Witnesses, then the elders would, following the process and procedures, discipline that person under the rules of the organisation - not so? A. Yes, like, in a situation where it was found that someone who claimed to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses was living in sin, then the elders would try to ascertain, well, what needs to be done? We obviously want to help the person, so the first step would be to ascertain, do they want to come back, are they willing to change what they are doing? And if, ultimately, the person is willing to talk to us, then, yes, that would be involved with the judicial process. Q. But if they are not, then either they must disassociate or they will be disfellowshipped? A. That would be in that particular case, but I can think of many scenarios where it wouldn't be". I can think of many scenarios where it wouldn't be either. In fact I KNOW of many scenarios personally where someone is no longer a JW (is living in sin, celebrates Birthdays and Christmas etc.) but has not dissasociated and has not been disfellowshipped. So he is not lying, and not making this up.
-
I don't think that is quite how he put it.
-
That's not what I meant. I meant the freedom to believe what one wants, and for the most part do what one wants. Most don't care, as long as they get your "membership" and your money. I would go even further than that. I would say they shop around to see which teachings agree with them. I had this discussion with my cousin, who is a baptized Catholic, but has not set foot inside a church for years until his wedding to the woman he was living with for several years (who is also Catholic) and has not set foot inside it since. As a side point they has a son out of wedlock who was 5 by the time they tied the knot, and one of the criterion for the wedding in the church was that they got their son baptized as a Catholic. Anyway, he also believes a host of other things; bits and pieces of shamanism, Buddhism etc..in fact, he really doesn't believe much of Catholicism. Anyway, back on track, our conversation was about humans picking and choosing the ideologies which suit them. I said that is how people choose their religion, they choose the one that suits them most. He agreed and said "you did too". So that's where he was wrong. I am not saying such beliefs as living forever on paradise earth and seeing loved ones being brought back to life are not attractive and do not play a role, but it's far more than that. Most Witnesses will be who they are because of an unselfish love for God and and desire to please him, not themselves. I like how you sneaked this one in. In actuality there is no comparison of course. Christendom forced people to convert under threats if they didn't. Joining JWs is a completely free exercise of one's will, free of any threats, including shunning. In fact joining JWs under duress or blackmail would be a completely pointless exercise for everyone involved. Well I know that The point of this topic is to explore what seem to be contradictory quotes as pointed out in the introduction of this thread. I shouldn't have phrased what I said the way I did.
-
Dissasociation Well that's logical isn't it? Simply put, and in a nutshell, you cannot be one of Jehovah's Witnesses if you disagree with any of the fundamental teachings and make it an issue in the congregation. It's logical. Unlike Christendom, where it's a free for all, Jehovah's Witnesses for the most part, believe all their core teachings. If there is something they feel very strongly about, and no longer believe it is true, to the point of not being able to remain one of Jehovah's Witnesses in good conscience, then they dissasociate themselves. This is a choice they make willingly. Conversely, it's impossible to be called a Witnesses if you willingly and unrepentantly do the things you mention either. If you join a club, you've got to abide by the club's rules, or you will have your membership revoked. Or if you no longer like the club's rules, you cease being a member (dissasociate yourself) The question though is, and this leads it back on topic, should someone who wants to quit being one of Jehovah's Witnesses be made to chose between his beliefs and the family.
- 108 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- disfellowshipping
- gb
- (and 5 more)
-
I was only going by what I thought you were implying. But now that you've clarified what you meant, we can say it's not about numbers either way.
- 108 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- disfellowshipping
- gb
- (and 5 more)
-
Still about numbers though.
-
Actually, this is perfectly true, disassociation is an action that an individual takes to leave an organization.
-
We would have to define first what a Cult is, and how it operates, in order to have a conversation about this. But this would be off topic on this thread. I am sure there is a topic on this subject somewhere on this forum though. Well duh!
-
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.
- 108 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- disfellowshipping
- gb
- (and 5 more)
-
Please if you can @Albert Michelson, limit the amount of images which say basically the same thing, as these tend to clog up the thread. Thanks
- 108 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- disfellowshipping
- gb
- (and 5 more)
-
I think your reasoning on this is wrong on several levels. The JW religion is not about how many numbers it has. If that were the case, then we could more efficiently and easily bolster our numbers by doing what religions of Christendom have done; water down the scriptures and tell the people what they want to hear and what is comfortable for them. We could allow smoking, turn a blind eye to adultery, fornication and homosexuality, support patriotism, celebrate all the holidays and Birthdays, have blood transfusions......you get the drift. The objective of the JW organization is not about numbers but to keep it morally and spiritually clean. It's about quality not quantity. And as @JW Insider remarked on the other thread, which puts it in a nutshell "We are counting on Jehovah's spirit to help us find the ministry that feels the most like what we would expect if we saw the first-century Christians trying to fit into the twenty-first century"
- 108 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- disfellowshipping
- gb
- (and 5 more)
-
If anyone cares to address questions raised by Albert I created a topic for it here: Â
- 213 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- apostasy
- disfellowshipping
- (and 4 more)
-
Jehovah doesn’t coerce anyone, neither do we as JWs coerce anyone to stay as JWS. We are free to leave at any time. In the end all will make an accounting to God individually. If someone comes to reject some of the organization's teachings and cannot in good conscience continue to support a religion they have come to believe is false, they must in good conscience leave. However, in doing so, they may have to sacrifice their relationship with their family as well (if they get disfellowshipped for it). This leaves the individual in a very difficult situation, to either stay in the faith hypocritically, in order not to lose their loved ones, or to sacrifice their relationship with loved ones in order to satisfy their conscience and be free of hypocrisy. Neither of these situations is ideal for the individual nor their loved ones. Do the scriptures give a solution to this problem? This hypothetical situation assumes the individual does not promote their opinion, nor do they cause any disruption in the congregation, it is merely their conscience that is at odds with them.
-
I have posted this issue before, but it was during the time of the hot topic of the persecution in Russia and maybe got overshadowed by it. A poster brought it up again in one of the threads so I thought I will try again to post it as a topic. My goal is not to sow doubts, nor to promote some false ideas, but rather to get to the bottom of this as I feel it is a valid question. The summary of the problem can be seen in the quotes below: Referring to people leaving their religion to join Jehovah's Witnesses: "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". Awake 7/09 page 29 AND Regarding those disfellowshipped from Jehovah's Witnesses: "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" p.16, paragraph 19, Study WT Jan / 2013 In the above situation we are assuming that the reason for disfellowshipping was because of changing one's religion and/or apostasy (not because of immorality etc.)
-
The above quote is the opinion of some. I do not believe all who are responsible ( GB) think that 1914 is false, despite Franz's claims.
-
Sometimes we got to do what we got to do, either way.....
-
OK. Yes, I know that article, from the 2009 Awake and I have posted a topic on that for discussion, but I think it got buried under the avalanche of the persecution and ban in Russia that was happening at the time. Perhaps I will re-post it because I feel it is a valid point...
-
Well, I think it would be better to leave before that happened
-
Just depends how they go about it doesn't it? If my conscience didn't allow me to teach something I wouldn't either. But that wouldn't get me disfellowshipped.
-
Hmmm....I doubt that very much. Sounds more like the problem was what you cited in the Elders book. i.e. deliberately spreading teachings contrary to what JWs teach.
- 213 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- apostasy
- disfellowshipping
- (and 4 more)
-
That's a matter of opinion. Can you prove that? Yes, I have read most of Franz's book
-
I’d like to propose a new topic, approaching this 1914 issue from another angle: “If the GB were to revise their understanding of 1914 (getting rid of it) propose how they would go about presenting this information without causing a big disruption and loss of faith, to those whose faith is dependent on 1914"
