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

[Albert Michelson]

By bolstering numbers  I wasn't suggesting that  their goal is to get as many members as possible.  What I was saying is that the goal is to counteract the steady flow of defectors by increasing their attention on the young ones who are already associated.

[Anna]

4 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

He repetedly lies about disassociation being  an action an individual takes or that it is their choice to go through this process

Actually, this is perfectly true, disassociation is an action that an individual takes to leave an organization.

[Albert Michelson]

No it is not

[Anna]

2 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

By bolstering numbers  I wasn't suggesting that  their goal is to get as many members as possible.  What I was saying is that the goal is to counteract the steady flow of defectors by increasing their attention on the young ones who are already associated.

Still about numbers though.

[Albert Michelson]

Just now, Anna said:

Still about numbers though.

Yes just not in the way you implied.

[Albert Michelson]

"Making known a firm decision to be known no longer as one ofJehovah's Witnesses. If the individual is agreeable, the committee should first try to speak with him and provide spiritual assistance. (GaL 6:1) Does he really desire to disassociate hjmself, or does he simply no longer want to associate actively with the congregation? Is the desire to disassociate prompted by doubts or discouragement? Is he is adamant in his position, he should be encouraged to put his request in writing and sign it. If he does not, then the witnesses to his request should prepare a statement for the confidential

files and sign it. 

 

Joining another religious organization and making known his intention to remain with it. If it is learned that a person has taken up association with another religious organization and thus is identified with it, a committee (not judicial) should be selected to investigate matters and endeavor to provide spiritual assistance. If the individual has joined another religious organization and intends to remain with it, he has disassociated himself. 

 

.. Willingly and unrepentantly taking blood. (it goes on to talk about what to do if the person is repentant from the point of view of the investigating elders)

On the other hand, if the elders on the committee determine that he is unrepentant, they should announce his disassociation. 

 

Taking a course contrary to the neutral position of the Christian congregation. (lsa. 2:4; John 15:17-19; w99 11/1 pp. 28-29) If he joins a non-neutral organization, he has disassociated himself. If his employment makes him a clear accomplice in non-neutral activities, he should generally be allowed a period of time up to six months to make an adjustment. If he does not, he has disassociated himself.-km 9/76 pp.3-6."

 

Simply having a different set of religious beliefs and making it clear that one intends to stick with those religious beliefs is grounds for automatic disassociation. This overlaps with apostasy which is filed as a disfellowshipping offense. 

 

The problem is out of the four criteria listed that result in disassociation only one is an action taken by the individual and even that is contestable. For example a written letter of disassociation as in the first example is not necessary, all that is necessary is for the individual to state that they no longer want to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses to two or more other Jehovah's Witnesses. If the individual then refuses to talk to the elders and does not write a letter of disassociation the elders will then take the testimony of those two witnesses as proof and automatically disassociate the individual without their permission and without them taking steps to show that that is what they want.  

 

The other examples given fall into the same category, they all involve actions taken by the elders without the permission of the individual and without considering whether or not they truly want it to happen. For example someone may join another religion, take a job that would classify as non-neutral or receive a blood transfusion. They may feel that there is nothing wrong with these things and also feel as though they do not wish to disassociate themselves. In the case of a blood transfusion the individual may not feel that such a transfusion is against Bible teachings and they may even still wish to remain part of the congregation or perhaps wish to be inactive. However because they don't believe it's wrong they are by default unrepentant and would automatically be classified as disassociated. 

 

An investigation into an action that classifies someone as disassociated is taken independently of their request. Their feelings and their wishes are irrelevant and the elders if they find these accusations to be true will automatically and without permission of the individual classify them as disassociated. 

It is for that reason that it cannot be said that disassociation is always an act taken by the individual nor can it ever be said that the individual by being disassociated is choosing to shun the congregation.

[Anna]

2 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

Yes just not in the way you implied.

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.

[Anna]

4 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

"Making known a firm decision to be known no longer as one ofJehovah's Witnesses

Dissasociation

4 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

If the individual has joined another religious organization and intends to remain with it, he has disassociated himself. 

Well that's logical isn't it?

 

8 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

they all involve actions taken by the elders without the permission of the individual and without considering whether or not they truly want it to happen. For example someone may join another religion, take a job that would classify as non-neutral or receive a blood transfusion. They may feel that there is nothing wrong with these things and also feel as though they do not wish to disassociate themselves

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.

[Albert Michelson]

18 minutes ago, Anna said:

Unlike Christendom, where it's a free for all,

I wouldn't call having the freedom to leave without being shunned "a free for all"

 Most people in other religions are part of a specific group because they personally agree with the teachings.  In that sense one could say that many of these groups are just as "unified" ( The members all agree with the central doctrines) as Jehovah's Witnesses the difference being that these groups don't have to blackmail their members into  agreeing with them.  The way you phrased this makes it seem like the witness method of coercion and blackmail is superior to Christendom's method ( granted this wasn't always the case they too used to use threats and persecution to get what they wanted as well) of allowing people to vote with their feet  and to make a decision based on one's conscience. As you said before the core issue is 

18 minutes ago, Anna said:

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

 My answer is a definite no. 

[Albert Michelson]

38 minutes ago, Anna said:

1 hour ago, Albert Michelson said:

"Making known a firm decision to be known no longer as one ofJehovah's Witnesses

Dissasociation

The problem of course is what I mentioned earlier.  Geoffrey Jackson  out right lied when he said that you could tell anyone you wanted you're no longer a Jehovah's Witness without repercussions. In reality if you were to say this to other Jehovah's Witnesses it would be enough for the judicial committee to conclude that you could be disassociated.  I have had many friends who didn't even  have that much evidence against them and they were still disfellowshipped.

[Anna]

12 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

I wouldn't call having the freedom to leave without being shunned "a free for all"

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.

16 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

 Most people in other religions are part of a specific group because they personally agree with the teachings

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.

40 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

 The way you phrased this makes it seem like the witness method of coercion and blackmail is superior to Christendom's method ( granted this wasn't always the case they too used to use threats and persecution to get what they wanted as well

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.

49 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

My answer is a definite no

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.

[Anna]

37 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

out right lied when he said that you could tell anyone you wanted you're no longer a Jehovah's Witness without repercussions

I don't think that is quite how he put it.