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

[TrueTomHarley]

4 hours ago, Anna said:

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.

I don't think anything of significance has changed since the 74 article. There is a bit of counsel designed so that persons do not get overly casual with disfellowshipping just because it is a relative, but there is nothing fundamentally different. And it is just counsel, albeit strong counsel. But it is nothing more. Having said that, I have never been there. But the things Franz speaks of today would not get one in hot water. Certainly not The Boot.

Could it cost one privileges in the congregation? Dunno. But if it does, it does. Life goes on without privileges.

And the advise I gave our very own Rocket Man is actually good counsel. If anyone is paranoid, take a screen shot of the FAQ and carry it around with you. And then carry on in accord with it.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

9 hours ago, Anna said:

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.

Of course it's all politics ... and the current policy is also cruel, and unscriptural.

That is how control is maintained ... fear through arbitrary punishment that makes no sense, for something someone else did, for fear you will be NEXT.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I don't think anything of significance has changed since the 74 article. There is a bit of counsel designed so that persons do not get overly casual with disfellowshipping just because it is a relative, but there is nothing fundamentally different

(With that statement it makes me wonder if you would recognize the difference between lightning, and a lightning bug.)

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

9 hours ago, Anna said:

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

That is how control is maintained ... fear through arbitrary punishment that makes no sense,  for fear you will be NEXT.

The same thing happened in Vietnam ... the logic was "we have wasted so many lives, we need to send more to validate them."

[Evacuated]

13 hours ago, Anna said:

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.

There is a  danger here in that one can compaign for an issue of one's own making. Basically, unrepentance for serious sin is the reason for disfellowshippnig. The scriptures are pretty clear on this. The counsel on differentiating between spiritual fellowship and family responsibility is prettty basic and can be applied simply by following what was stated in 1981 :  For those sharing a dwelling, "Since his being disfellowshipped does not sever the family ties, normal day-to-day family activities and dealings may continue." For those not, " there might be a need for limited contact on some rare occasion to care for a necessary family matter, any such contact should be kept to a minimum." These seems perfectly adequate. For me, the rarity would be as compared to the contact with one sharing a dwelling, not the typical weddings and funerals only contact that many families engage in as a normal practice in today's world.

So how to apply this is definitely a matter of conscience. However, as with ALL conscience matters, other people's consciences are effected too. How we apply principles in these areas are always going to bring mixed reaction from others. Excercise of freedom must always be done discreetly in my opinion, and there is no harm in "playing one's cards close to one's chest." Paul at times chose not to excercise his freedom at all in matters that might stumble others.

However if one wishes to strike a defiant attitude in this matter, even to the point of maligning the Christian congregation because a paticular stance is taken on a conscience matter,  one is free to do so. But there are always consequences for this kind of behaviour. 

One thing for sure, running ahead of Jehovah or criticising his ways because of some personal discontent at what appears to be unfair, unreasonable or just delayed, (better ask Saul), will not bring good results. We only have to look at Sarah. She impatiently arranged for Abraham to produce offspring through her maidservant Hagar. This resulted in many problems and eventual estrangement. Then, after her (denied ) laughter at the prospect of having a child naturally, Jehovah stuck to his arrangements, which brought success, meanwhile, impatient humans scuttled around failing with theirs. Gen.16:1-16, 17:18-27, 18:9-15, 21:1-21 etc.. Even still, Jehovah provided for the casualties, as he also provides for those disfellowshipped today in keeping open a way back and even using right hearted ones in his kingdom work despite their estrangement. (Incidentally, he did provide even for Adam and Eve after their expulsion didn't he?).

This reminds me of the point in Ezekiel 43:8. Israel's profaning of God's name extended to those who said Jehovah's discipline of the nation ws a sign of weakness, or lack of protection, or some other negative connotation on Jehovah's name or reputation.

Rather like those who criticise Jehovah's disciplining of unrepentant wrongdoers today as a violation of human rights! How true the words: "Men given to badness cannot understand judgment, but those who are seeking Jehovah can understand everything." Pro.28:5. Those "seeking" can include suitably chastened disfellowshipped ones!

More to be said on this topic I am sure.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

10 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:

More to be said on this topic I am sure.

... just one complex thought ... destroying whole families  to discipline one person is philosophical familial genocide.

Shunning should NOT be an institutional mandate ... or why do we even NEED a conscience at all?

There is a REASON "The love of the greater number will cool off".

Cruelty.

 

[Anna]

14 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

There is a  danger here in that one can campaign for an issue of one's own making.

I definitely don't want to be doing that. But can you see the difference between the 1981 counsel

14 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

 For those sharing a dwelling, "Since his being disfellowshipped does not sever the family ties, normal day-to-day family activities and dealings may continue." For those not, " there might be a need for limited contact on some rare occasion to care for a necessary family matter, any such contact should be kept to a minimum."

and the 1974 counsel

On 9/17/2017 at 5:21 PM, Anna said:

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........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.

 

I see a big difference in the spirit of the admonition. (And especially so after watching the video)

14 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

However, as with ALL conscience matters, other people's consciences are effected too.

Very true, and I feel the same way

14 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Excercise of freedom must always be done discreetly in my opinion, and there is no harm in "playing one's cards close to one's chest." Paul at times chose not to excercise his freedom at all in matters that might stumble others.

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.

14 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

One thing for sure, running ahead of Jehovah or criticising his ways because of some personal discontent

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.

14 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Rather like those who criticise Jehovah's disciplining of unrepentant wrongdoers today as a violation of human rights!

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.

 

 

[Anna]

21 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I don't think anything of significance has changed since the 74 article.

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

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Anna:

I agree with your varied assessments 100%.

I have a great capacity for unlimited cruelty and destruction ... but I do not exercise it ... so I fully understand the psychology  of cruelty, and I recognize instantly when it is being used for the consolidation of arbitrary and capricious political power.

If a person is justly disfellowshipped ... that is an agreeable thing with Jehovah.

What is being practiced today, under threat of similar cruelty .. is just plain cruelty to generate fear among the cowardly, and loathing among those that love Justice.

... including Jehovah.

[Anna]

On 9/3/2017 at 8:44 AM, JW Insider said:

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) 4 For as regards those who were once enlightened and who have tasted the heavenly free gift and who have become partakers of holy spirit 5 and who have tasted the fine word of God and powers of the coming system of things, 6 but have fallen away, it is impossible to revive them again to repentance, because they nail the Son of God to the stake again for themselves and expose him to public shame.
• (2 Peter 2:20-22) 20 Certainly if after escaping from the defilements of the world by an accurate knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they get involved again with these very things and are overcome, their final state has become worse for them than the first. 21 It would have been better for them not to have accurately known the path of righteousness than after knowing it to turn away from the holy commandment they had received. 22 What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog has returned to its own vomit, and the sow that was bathed to rolling in the mire.”

Very good point!

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

14 minutes ago, Anna said:

Very good point!

Yes... excellent and valid points .... assuming you are not lulled by endless repetition into the Pubspeak that it applies to ANYTHING, but allegiance to Jehovah God and His Christ.

[Anna]

24 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Anna:

I agree with your varied assessments 100%.

I have a great capacity for unlimited cruelty and destruction ... but I do not exercise it ... so I fully understand the psychology  of cruelty, and I recognize instantly when it is being used for the consolidation of arbitrary and capricious political power.

If a person is justly disfellowshipped ... that is an agreeable thing with Jehovah.

What is being practiced today, under threat of similar cruelty .. is just plain cruelty to generate fear among the cowardly, and loathing among those that love Justice.

... including Jehovah.

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.