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

[Evacuated]

13 hours ago, Anna said:

Does it mean that if Adam wanted to keep loyal, he would have not only rejected the fruit but also Eve? 

We can only speculate on scenarios here. What is clear however, is that Adam could have rejected Eve's wrong course and let the "Judge of all the earth" decide on the outcome. We just cannot imagine how Jehovah would have solved this problem, but we can be sure His solution would have been just as amazing and beyond human imagination as the real solution He has devised for the real situation. He even provided for the rebels and that included hope for their offspring which they could have imparted to their children. Even today, parents in dire straits may get some consolation in knowing their children will be OK.

 I have noticed today that even when people are disfellowshipped, they can still be instrumental in Jehovah's work. I personally know a few who have become witnesses with assistance from disfellowshipped ones. And that is outside the family arrangement where it is clear that disfellowshipped parents are still seen as having responsibility for their minor children's spiritual welfare. So they weren't rejected by Jehovah completely either.

Disfellowshipping is a scripturally based disciplinary arrangement. Imperfect humans get it round their neck like so many other things. Some, even though not actually experiencing the situation, act like the Sadducees (comp Matt.22:23-33) and create all manner of "what if" scenarios, "testing the limits" as it were, trying to break the fence. But breaking a fence doesn't change a boundary does it? It might show  up a weakness of course, requiring repair, so adjustments in the process of disfellowshippng can and have be made, but the bottom line of the matter is that unrepentant, serious sinners are disfellowshipped. And rightly so.

As for those who decide "I don't want to serve Jehovah on His terms. I renounce my dedication and  I don't want anyone to try and get me back". They in effect place themselves in the same yard as those disfellowshipped for unrepentance as their heart attitude is basically the same. Some may even arrogantly delude themselves into thinking they have disfellowshipped the congregation or have some how out-manoeuvred the judicial arrangements, but at the end of the day, they are all just taking the devil's carrot, "you will be like God, knowing good and bad."

All manner of tear-jerking scenarios both real and imagined are brought to the table in these kind of discussions. Unfortunately, the reality is that Jehovah's will is not always what Jehovah's people do, so as Jesus said “It is unavoidable that causes for stumbling should come" Luke 17:1. We have to deal with them, and wait on Jehovah to correct matters, be it an actual practice, or our thinking.

Abraham said it is is "unthinkable" that Jehovah would ever act unjustly, so we just have to stick to that awareness, even as far as Job did. It is best practice to stay middle of the road even if it is narrow. Certainly "kicking against the goads" will result in damage, even if we stay on the right path.

 

[TrueTomHarley]

5 hours ago, Anna said:

I noticed something in our FAQ that could be very misleading to someone who didn't know any better: "What of a man who is disfellowshipped but whose wife and children are still Jehovah’s Witnesses? The religious ties he had with his family change, but blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings continue". 

Does it? It does.

3 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I am 70 years old .... but I am expected to treat my real sister who was baptized in the 2nd grade, at 8 years old,  like dirt, and WORSE .... completely shunning her ...  when she turns 50 and decides she made a mistake getting baptized so young, or makes other mistakes common to  humans.

Cut out the FAQ question and answer, put it in your wallet by your driver's licence and be done with it. Sometimes I think you would not do so for fear that you would lose bitching privileges here.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

I know you have many personalities here, all with names and logins, but the TTH persona keeps projecting what HE is afraid of ... to me.

That is NOT the case.

 

[TrueTomHarley]

What? Do you think I am kidding? Do it. You have perfect cover.

Of course, to maximize your cover you might want to take down 10,000 or so graphics.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

TTH:

I might want to take down 10,000 or so graphics?

WHY?

I do not NEED a perfect cover ... or any kind of "cover" at all .....

It is YOU that hide behind five or six different "anonymous username" logins.

That is a fact.

What you have is a projection FANTASY.

[A Nice Guy]

Who is this windbag who is obscuring counsel and speaking without knowledge?

[Anna]

10 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

We just cannot imagine how Jehovah would have solved this problem, but we can be sure His solution would have been just as amazing and beyond human imagination as the real solution He has devised for the real situation.

Agree

10 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

have noticed today that even when people are disfellowshipped, they can still be instrumental in Jehovah's work. I personally know a few who have become witnesses with assistance from disfellowshipped ones.

Good observation, and I have noticed that too.

10 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

but the bottom line of the matter is that unrepentant, serious sinners are disfellowshipped. And rightly so.

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.

10 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

All manner of tear-jerking scenarios both real and imagined are brought to the table in these kind of discussions. Unfortunately, the reality is that Jehovah's will is not always what Jehovah's people do, so as Jesus said “It is unavoidable that causes for stumbling should come" Luke 17:1. We have to deal with them, and wait on Jehovah to correct matters, be it an actual practice, or our thinking.

Abraham said it is is "unthinkable" that Jehovah would ever act unjustly, so we just have to stick to that awareness, even as far as Job did. It is best practice to stay middle of the road even if it is narrow. Certainly "kicking against the goads" will result in damage, even if we stay on the right path.

 

I like that

[Evacuated]

I am glad your sister-in-law has been reinstated. I see no reason why your mother-in-law should have rejected her grandchildren on the strength of your sister in-law's foolishness, regardless of any narrow-minded interpretation that some might apply to her actions. She of course would have to endure any consequences, even unjust ones, should they come as a result of her conscientous (hopefully) decision. But really it only goes to show why Jehovah has standards, and why the penalty for violation can seem severe. Look at the trouble caused for your mother-in-law. Same with Eve. Death penalty for "scrumping"? Bit Victorian isn't it? Huh, just look at the consequences for everyone else! 

28 minutes ago, Anna said:

it goes against natural human affection and decency that we were created with.

It is difficult for us to know what the boundaries on these natural feelings are/should be. We are imperfect, and even if we were not, Jeremiah's words would still be valid: "I well know, O Jehovah, that man’s way does not belong to him. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step." Jer.10:23.

Wasn't Abraham asked to go against against natural human affection and decency that we were created with? (Gen.22:2). But his faith in Jehovah moved him to obey what must have seemed more absurd than what his wife had been presented with many years earlier (Gen.18:12).Jehovah resolved the problem for him, but Abraham had no idea of the outcome until the matter was resolved. (Gen.22:8; 12). The important thing was that his faith prompted his obedience and gained him Jehovah's favour in a very special way. That opportunity is open to us all (James 3:22-23).

We can all point to examples where making our own decisions when faced with an unpleasant choice leads to a seemingly successful outcome. A typical example of this is the injunction to marry "only in the lord". Any number of experiences can be cited where brothers and sisters have flouted this counsel, and lo! The "unbeliever" has started a bible study and has become one of Jehovah's Witnesses! As if this vindicates a course of disobedience to Jehovah.

Does this show the "only in the lord" injunction to be faulty? As faulty as some would claim the way in which the disfellowshipping injunction is applied? I think it more indicates the mercy of our God Jehovah who "has not dealt with us according to our sins, nor has he repaid us what our errors deserve" Ps.103:10. Also, his impartial and forgiving nature in that he does not withold his blessing even from those who are seemingly gained by the actions of those who have ignored his counsel.

What is often overlooked in these matters is the calamity that can befall others when the results of these self-willed decisions do not turn out so well. Or what about the fact that "because  sentence against a bad deed [by one person] has not been executed speedily, the heart of [other] men [or women] becomes emboldened to do bad" (Ecc.8:11)? Then Jesus words at Luke 17:1-2 become more significant do they not?

But then of course we all need to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling (Ph.2:12) do we not?  And accept the consequences of our choices (Gal.6:7). Sometimes this can be a lonely place (Pro.14:17), but then a stand on principle is not always easy (Luke 9:23). One thing for sure, "it will turn out well for those who fear the true God, because they fear him". Ecc.8:12.

 

[Anna]

On 9/15/2017 at 8:02 PM, Gone Fishing said:

I am glad your sister-in-law has been reinstated. I see no reason why your mother-in-law should have rejected her grandchildren on the strength of your sister in-law's foolishness, regardless of any narrow-minded interpretation that some might apply to her actions. She of course would have to endure any consequences, even unjust ones, should they come as a result of her conscientous (hopefully) decision. But really it only goes to show why Jehovah has standards, and why the penalty for violation can seem severe. Look at the trouble caused for your mother-in-law. Same with Eve. Death penalty for "scrumping"? Bit Victorian isn't it? Huh, just look at the consequences for everyone else! 

It is difficult for us to know what the boundaries on these natural feelings are/should be. We are imperfect, and even if we were not, Jeremiah's words would still be valid: "I well know, O Jehovah, that man’s way does not belong to him. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step." Jer.10:23.

Wasn't Abraham asked to go against against natural human affection and decency that we were created with? (Gen.22:2). But his faith in Jehovah moved him to obey what must have seemed more absurd than what his wife had been presented with many years earlier (Gen.18:12).Jehovah resolved the problem for him, but Abraham had no idea of the outcome until the matter was resolved. (Gen.22:8; 12). The important thing was that his faith prompted his obedience and gained him Jehovah's favour in a very special way. That opportunity is open to us all (James 3:22-23).

We can all point to examples where making our own decisions when faced with an unpleasant choice leads to a seemingly successful outcome. A typical example of this is the injunction to marry "only in the lord". Any number of experiences can be cited where brothers and sisters have flouted this counsel, and lo! The "unbeliever" has started a bible study and has become one of Jehovah's Witnesses! As if this vindicates a course of disobedience to Jehovah.

Does this show the "only in the lord" injunction to be faulty? As faulty as some would claim the way in which the disfellowshipping injunction is applied? I think it more indicates the mercy of our God Jehovah who "has not dealt with us according to our sins, nor has he repaid us what our errors deserve" Ps.103:10. Also, his impartial and forgiving nature in that he does not withold his blessing even from those who are seemingly gained by the actions of those who have ignored his counsel.

What is often overlooked in these matters is the calamity that can befall others when the results of these self-willed decisions do not turn out so well. Or what about the fact that "because  sentence against a bad deed [by one person] has not been executed speedily, the heart of [other] men [or women] becomes emboldened to do bad" (Ecc.8:11)? Then Jesus words at Luke 17:1-2 become more significant do they not?

But then of course we all need to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling (Ph.2:12) do we not?  And accept the consequences of our choices (Gal.6:7). Sometimes this can be a lonely place (Pro.14:17), but then a stand on principle is not always easy (Luke 9:23). One thing for sure, "it will turn out well for those who fear the true God, because they fear him". Ecc.8:12.

 

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.

 

[Anna]

On 9/2/2017 at 8:00 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

Yikes!

I've got a thing for Mormons and an entire Mormon category on my blog, which I do not have for any other religion.

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.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

You want to tick off a Morman ... in the nicest way ... ask him how Joseph Smith received the Bible ... then comment "Well, that's not a religion you could just "pull outta a hat!".

I did this.

VERY hard to keep a straight face.

I suspect the "Angel Moroni" was a Joseph Smith inside joke, between him and the church treasurer.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

7 hours ago, Anna said:

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.

You would have to add polygamy or unlimited sexual partners to the sales pitch... THEN you "gots a winnah!"

10% tithing would be cheaper than dating, and alimony!