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

[Albert Michelson]

 

16 minutes ago, Anna said:

Most Witnesses will be who they are because of an unselfish love for God and and desire to please him, not themselves.

I have a very different opinion but we don't need to argue about the conduct of witnesses and their personal motivations. I will say however that it's hard to know what their true feelings are when they're not allowed to express them.

 

19 minutes ago, Anna said:

Joining JWs is a completely free exercise of one's will, free of any threats, including shunning.

That is not true many children are threatened with being thrown out if they don't get baptized. And I know many who were never baptized but still get shunned because the have spoken out. 

 

22 minutes ago, Anna said:

In fact joining JWs under duress or blackmail would be a completely pointless exercise for everyone involved

I agree which is why child baptizm shouldn't be allowed.

23 minutes ago, Anna said:

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

That's his exact words.

[Albert Michelson]

But again the real issue isn't joining it's leaving. 

[Anna]

2 hours ago, Albert Michelson said:

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.

 

59 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

That's his exact words.

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.

[Anna]

1 hour ago, Albert Michelson said:

That is not true many children are threatened with being thrown out if they don't get baptized. And I know many who were never baptized but still get shunned because the have spoken out. 

That may be true, but it is an exclusively personal thing, nothing that's taught by the org.

[Albert Michelson]

7 minutes ago, Anna said:

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.

He's fortunate, one of my friends was out for 5 years and then found out that the elders disfellowshiped her. She still has no idea why she only found out because her mom told her. She wasn't doing anything that even qualified as wrong in the eyes of the organization. For every example you can put forward I can  guarantee I have another. 

The fact is that according to the organizations policy's you cannot tell anyone you want your no longer a witness. 

12 minutes ago, Anna said:

        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 refuse to believe you're this dishonest. Don't start resorting to double speak now. The implication of this statement is that if they don't apply to be disassociated then they can tell anyone they want they're not witnesses without getting disassociated or disfellowshiped which is false.

[Anna]

5 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

The implication of this statement is that if they don't apply to be disassociated then they can tell anyone they want they're not witnesses without getting disassociated or disfellowshiped which is false.

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.

[Albert Michelson]

I would say that he was called out and that Angus Stewart demonstrated that his claim was false. But we don't need to argue about that. Ether way we're back where we started. With people getting punished for leaving. I can think of examples of some making it out without being shunned and many others where they couldn't. The point is that the organization is punishing people for disagreeing with them or in some cases simply stating that they don't want to be a witness. 

[Anna]

22 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

I would say that he was called out and that Angus Stewart demonstrated that his claim was false. But we don't need to argue about that. Ether way we're back where we started. With people getting punished for leaving. I can think of examples of some making it out without being shunned and many others where they couldn't. The point is that the organization is punishing people for disagreeing with them or in some cases simply stating that they don't want to be a witness. 

The point is - whether he was called out or not (and I won't argue about that) - the truth of the matter is that disfellowshipping for leaving JW is not automatic, and there are circumstances where ones have left and never got disfellowshipped.  But as you say, regardless, we do want to address the issue of disfellowshipping for leaving under the circumstances that officially warrant disfellowshipping. Maybe we are getting to the core of the issue now.

I have to get back to some work now, so I may be gone for a while. Hopefully someone else will chime in as well in the meantime...

[Albert Michelson]

25 minutes ago, Anna said:

But as you say, regardless, we do want to address the issue of disfellowshipping for leaving under the circumstances that officially warrant disfellowshipping. Maybe we are getting to the core of the issue now.

Yes we could talk about the people who slip through the cracks but if the policies were applied as they are written in all cases then leaving without being shunned would be even more difficult than it already is and that is the central issue. The policies make it virtually impossible to exercise your conscience without tremendous loss.

[Anna]

On 8/28/2017 at 5:33 PM, Albert Michelson said:

Yes we could talk about the people who slip through the cracks but if the policies were applied as they are written in all cases then leaving without being shunned would be even more difficult than it already is and that is the central issue. The policies make it virtually impossible to exercise your conscience without tremendous loss.

It's not really a case of slipping through the cracks. And what policies in particular are you talking about? The purpose of disfellowshipping is twofold, and has been mentioned on another thread recently. Whether you agree or not, it is primarily to protect the congregation and keep it clean morally. You don't want members who are known to be practicing something which is condemned in the Bible to be freely associating with the congregation as if it was OK. I'm sure you can understand that. You also don't want members publicly speaking out against what JWs teach and cause a disturbance to members. Believe me, not everyone wants to discuss Malawi/Mexico and why 1914 could be wrong, even if they suspect it could be wrong. And that needs to be respected. Nothing likely would happen unless a number of members started complaining about this particular individual. You read in the letters yourself, no one gets dissfellowshipped automatically just for sharing some "controversial" information, but to try and hammer "TTATT"  (which by the way is subjective anyway) at every opportunity is obviously not going to go down very well. But if you call that exercising your conscience, then you might also need to reflect on the conscience of others too.

So, in a nutshell, the elders are not so interested in making life hard for someone who no longer wants to be a JW as you wish to believe. They have other things to do, most have families they'd like to spend time with. If the individual is not causing any trouble, then I can guarantee they'd much rather leave things alone. I don't know what kind of experiences you've had, and your friends, they either had Nazi elders, or must have been causing a disturbance among the friends. Somehow I think it's more likely to be the latter.

 

[Anna]

But the question remains, should someone who changes their religion from JW to something else and does not advertise this, and is not known in the community to be one of JWS be disfellowshipped. Probably they would not be disfellowshipped. However, what if the individual gets disfellowshipped for another reason, immorality etc. and while out, decides they no longer want to be one of JWs. They get married, and no longer live in sin. To all intents and purposes they are no longer practicing what they were disfellowshipped for. But they will remain disfellowshipped unless they "come back". But of course they are no longer interested in that. That's a catch 22.

[Noble Berean]

On 8/28/2017 at 1:25 AM, Albert Michelson said:

 

I get it. You don't agree with child baptism. I don't either. However, whatever criticisms I have of the org...I will never regret my dedication to Jehovah God.