James Thomas Rook Jr.

I can understand this completely. I believe that giving such counsel has been much easier for the past couple of decades. However, during those years when our counsel was supposed to be more dogmatic and pharisaic, I also had to give similar counsel to a sister with an unbelieving husband, and a couple where one of them was partially disabled.
However, I still think that it is proper to counsel a couple based on the principle in Romans 1, because it speaks of the "natural use of the body." It's true that we might have charged it with meaning that wasn't intended, but that also means that we might not have. Therefore, if conscience should play a role, then these verses ought to be included in potentially relevant counsel when helping one whose conscience is unclear. This also means that I would make an adjustment to your first and third bullet point. Just because both agree, does not necessarily mean that their conscience should be clear. I'm uncomfortable with using 1 Cor 7 in exactly the way you used it here as if should apply to an entire range of activities that might even push the envelope of what one spouse finds comfortable. It's possible that the verse is being "charged" with meaning that wasn't intended. 
Even if the principle is correct most of the time, I believe that any reasonable Christian couple should keep in mind that the real principle should not be that they simply agree, because agreement can be manipulated by emotion. Therefore, what someone might consent to at one time, might be something they would not have consented to at another time. Just the acknowledgment that this possibility might exist might make a couple think twice before engaging in experimentation that might prove dangerous either literally, or spiritually.
I don't believe we should ever use the Bible as a kind of legalistic book of rules, but every part of it can and should be used for guidance, discipline, encouragement, and training/adjusting our conscience.
I like your exposition of the verse in Proverbs 5:19. So true.

Anna, I have pending some commentaries regarding other quotes, but let’s start for this one.

The tp book declaration about the proper sexual conduct in matrimony is, simply, dogmatic. Reflects the point of view of the writer: “I dislike eating snails so the Bible verses talking about uncleanness, natural or not natural, etc. apply to my view. And this view the brotherhood will do well to follow”.

As I’ve mention, the verses (Rom 1:24-27) were CHARGED with an inexistent meaning.  Later, the w78 2/15 pp. 30-32 quoted above, discharged the verses regarding this meaning. But this was in a footnote. Who read footnotes? The damage was already done. Even Melinda quoted the tp book, not the posterior Watchtower correction. This, Anna, is the concern in this topic. Lack of humility. You know the media treatment about JW: “some JW dead for blood issue” TITULAR in bold type. Weeks later “JW died for another reason.” Page xx with small type.

The damage I’ve seen with my own eyes has to do with couples that would be very happy enjoying their intimacy, because BOTH of them agree in sex conduct. But due to our (GB) teaching, as you have mention, arise doubts that disturb them.

Steve Jobs style: “one more thing.”

·        (Proverbs 5:19) “Let her breasts satisfy you at all times. May you be captivated by her love constantly”.
I prefer our older translation, more literal.

·        (Proverbs 5:19) “Let her own breasts intoxicate you at all times. With her love may you be in an ecstasy constantly”.
Note the words “intoxicate” or “ecstasy”. Do these words reflect… how can I say, “a quiet behavior”? (here I’m quite lost with my English. In Spanish I could pick up some exact but prudent words that convey the meaning I wish to transmit, so I apologize if I say outrages). What if the couple wants a more “expressive” behavior?

The meaning of these words is well expressed in this quote in Pulpit Commentary http://biblehub.com/commentaries/proverbs/5-19.htm

·        And be thou ravished always with her love; i.e. let it intoxicate thee. The teacher, by a bold figure, describes the entire fascination which the husband is to allow the wife to exercise over him. The verb shagah is "to reel under the influence of wine," and is so used in the succeeding vers. 20 and 23, and Proverbs 20:1 and Isaiah 28:7. The primary meaning, "to err from the way," scarcely applies here, and does not express the idea of the teacher, which is to describe "an intensity of love connected with the feeling of superabundant happiness" (Delitzsch).
So, according the Bible, it is perfectly correct, clean, normal, appropriate: to get intoxicate, to get “drunk”, to lose the mind… in the bedroom.

The counsel given to this couple was:

·        The Bible talks about behavior clean and unclean, but Jehovah has not registered exactly what does it cover inside a matrimony, so it is up to both of you. Then, there is no reason for a bad conscience any decision that both of you agree.
·        No one of you should force to the other to practice something disgusting or that made the other feel with bad conscience.
·        If both of you like something, even more, if only one of you want something and the other have no inconvenient, it’ll be an example of love to “pay the debt” so no one of you remains “hungry” and exposed to temptation (1Cor 7)
·        Any decision should remain indoors. If this matter spreads to the congregation it could have consequences (for example, privileges)
They thanked us the help, and obviously, I’ve not ask them about any decision. But I see them happy.

Melinda, as always, your commentaries are very welcome. Too, your words reflect good reasoning, scriptural and wise.

The only issue is, in my opinion, is when we apply uncleanness to certain practices or we refer to a particular conduct as “normal.” When I’ve dealt about these matters with other people, and they ask me about reasons, or proof that some particular behavior fits into “disgraceful”, I can’t answer with my personal views, nor our literature. I need to use the Bible, only the Bible.

The 1973 tp book paragraph you’ve quoted:

·        The inspired Bible writer did not have to explain the natural way in which the reproductive organs of husband and wife complement each other. Homosexual relations obviously cannot follow this natural way. So, male and female homosexuals employ other forms of intercourse in what the apostle refers to as “disgraceful sexual appetites” and “obscene” practices. (Romans 1:24-32) Could married couples imitate such homosexual forms of intercourse in their own marriage and still be free in God’s eyes from expressing “disgraceful sexual appetites” or “hurtful desire”?
It is modified for this posterior explanation:

·        *** w78 2/15 pp. 30-32 Questions From Readers ***[Footnotes] Reference has been made to the apostle’s statements at Romans 1:24-27 regarding “the natural use” of male and female bodies. As is evident and has been consistently acknowledged, these statements are made in the context of homosexuality. They do not make any direct reference to sexual practices by husband and wife. It must also be acknowledged that even those love expressions that are completely normal and common between husband and wife would be “unnatural” for persons of the same sex and immoral for unmarried people. Whatever guidance these apostolic statements provide as regards sex practices within marriage, therefore, is indirect and must be viewed as only of a persuasive but not a conclusive nature, that is, not the basis for setting up hard and fast standards for judgment. At the same time there is the possibility and perhaps a likelihood that some sex practices now engaged in by husband and wife were originally practiced only by homosexuals. If this should be the case, then certainly this would give these practices at least an unsavory origin. So the matter is not one to be lightly dismissed by the conscientious Christian simply because no direct reference to married persons appears in the aforementioned texts.
I see in the above quote three ideas.

First. Paul’s word regarding “natural” were about having sex between one man and one woman. This was the “natural.” We should not extrapolate to some practices between a married couple.
Second. A “simple” kiss between homosexuals is “unnatural”
Third. When the footnote mention the possibility-likelihood that some practices were originally practiced only by homosexuals, the writer is emitting an opinion. You see, no scripture sustains this affirmation.  Homosexuals also kiss and hug each other, and not for this reason should avoid the matrimonies kissing and hugging in our relationship.
I’m afraid regarding this matter of “proper” sexual behavior between the matrimony is happening something similar when we refused the transplants as a form of cannibalism. We “charged” excessively the meaning of some verse, in this case, Gen 9:2-4. I reproduce next paragraphs:

·        *** w67 11/15 p. 702 Questions From Readers *** When Jehovah for the first time allowed humans to eat animal flesh, he explained matters this way to Noah: “A fear of you and a terror of you will continue upon every living creature of the earth and upon every flying creature of the heavens, upon everything that goes moving on the ground, and upon all the fishes of the sea. Into your hand they are now given. Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.” (Gen. 9:2-4) That allowance was made to Noah, from whom every person now alive descended. Hence, it applies to all of us. Humans were allowed by God to eat animal flesh and to sustain their human lives by taking the lives of animals, though they were not permitted to eat blood. Did this include eating human flesh, sustaining one’s life by means of the body or part of the body of another human, alive or dead? No! That would be cannibalism, a practice abhorrent to all civilized people. Jehovah clearly made a distinction between the lives of animals and the lives of humans, mankind being created in God’s image, with his qualities. (Gen. 1:27) This distinction is evident in His next words. God proceeded to show that man’s life is sacred and is not to be taken at will, as may be done with the animals to be used for food. To show disrespect for the sanctity of human life would make one liable to have his own life taken.—Gen. 9:5, 6.
As we see, the writer of the article quotes Genesis with a basic idea: God allowed humans eating animal flesh. Now, the verse is “charged”: so, as no mention about eating human flesh in the verses, this is abhorrent and forbidden. But this idea, in spite all sane people agree with, is not scriptural.

Thus, years later was a “discharge” of the meaning of Genesis.

·        *** w80 3/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers *** Some Christians might feel that taking into their bodies any tissue or body part from another human is cannibalistic. […] They might not see it as fundamentally different from consuming flesh through the mouth. Such feelings may arise from considering that God did not make specific provision for man to eat the flesh of his fellowman when he made provision for humans to eat the flesh of animals [this was our former view, the “charged verse”] […] Other sincere Christians today may feel that the Bible does not definitely rule out medical transplants of human organs. […] It may be argued, too, that organ transplants are different from cannibalism since the “donor” is not killed to supply food. […]  While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue. For this reason, each individual faced with making a decision on this matter should carefully and prayerfully weigh matters and then decide conscientiously what he or she could or could not do before God. It is a matter for personal decision. (Gal. 6:5) The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant.
 

I love this kind of reasoning from the GB! I find it so humble! The Bible doesn’t directly mention this matter. The basic principle in Gen. is to eat animal flesh. Any derivation from the basic principle is up to each individual.

By the way, do you find horrible eating human flesh? Me too. But if someone allows be transplanted with an organ (eating this organ as we used to say) I respect his position. In the same way, perhaps you and I share the same view regarding the proper sexual behavior in our matrimonies, and we find disgusting some practices, right. But if other married couple opine in a different way I don’t see myself with the authority to “charge” some verses to make these persons view the matters as I see.

Melinda, I voted you favorably. We don’t share completely the same view, but your points are very valid and respectable!

*** W16 8/15 page 15, pf 8. “Although the Bible does not provide specific rules about the kinds and limits of love play that might be associated with natural sexual intimacy, it mentions displays of affection. (Song of Sol. 1:2; 2:6) Christian marriage partners should treat each other with tenderness.”
 
Hi Comfort, re the above, I appreciate your mentioning these things difficult subjects as you have successfully done before; communications on these things is necessary, so don’t give up. (It is like discussing sex with your pre-teens, unpleasant to some people but it is necessary.) However, please note this reference says “natural” sexual intimacy. I believe people should understand the Bible and the spirit behind God’s laws, as well as perceiving that the will of God is when it is not spelled out. So I beg to disagree with you here. In fact I like what was written before time and which has not been mentioned much recently. For this reason I continue to believe what I see here in “True peace and Security – How Can You Find it”.
 
*** tp chap. 13 pp. 149-151 Your View of Sex—What Difference Does It Make? ***
Wisely Avoiding All Uncleanness and Sexual Greed
17 Sexual relations plainly have a proper place in the lives of married persons. God provided this as the means by which children would be produced, and also as a source of pleasure to the parents. (Genesis 9:1; Proverbs 5:18, 19; 1 Corinthians 7:3-5) Nevertheless, he warned against abusing this gift.—Ephesians 5:5.
18 Because of the emphasis placed on sex today, many young folks find that their desire for sexual satisfaction is aroused even before they are in position to marry. As a result, some of them seek pleasure through self-stimulation of their sexual parts. This is masturbation, or self-abuse. Is it a proper or wise practice?
19 The Scriptures counsel: “Deaden, therefore, your body members that are upon the earth as respects fornication, uncleanness, sexual appetite, hurtful desire, and covetousness.” (Colossians 3:5) Is one who practices masturbation ‘deadening his body members as respects sexual appetite’? On the contrary, he is stimulating the sexual appetite. The Bible urges that one avoid the thinking and conduct that lead to such problems, replacing them with wholesome activity, and that one cultivate self-control. (Philippians 4:8; Galatians 5:22, 23) When earnest effort is put forth to do this, such self-abuse can be avoided, with benefits mentally, emotionally, and spiritually.
20 What the Bible says respecting “uncleanness, sexual appetite, hurtful desire” applies to all Christians, single and married. It is true that husband and wife have a Scriptural right to engage in sexual relations with each other. But does this mean that they can throw off all restraint? The fact that God’s Word urges all Christians to cultivate self-control argues against such a view. (2 Peter 1:5-8) The inspired Bible writer did not have to explain the natural way in which the reproductive organs of husband and wife complement each other. Homosexual relations obviously cannot follow this natural way. So, male and female homosexuals employ other forms of intercourse in what the apostle refers to as “disgraceful sexual appetites” and “obscene” practices. (Romans 1:24-32) Could married couples imitate such homosexual forms of intercourse in their own marriage and still be free in God’s eyes from expressing “disgraceful sexual appetites” or “hurtful desire”?
21 On considering what the Scriptures say, a person may realize that his former thinking on these matters was molded by those who are, as the Bible says, “past all moral sense.” But, with God’s help, one can “put on the new personality,” which is molded in accord with God’s standards of righteousness. (Ephesians 4:17-24) In this way a person shows that he truly means it when he says that he wants to do God’s will. Your View Vitally Affects Your Peace and Security
22 Applying the counsel of God’s Word as respects sexual morality is not burdensome. Contrast the fruitage of the course the Bible outlines with the world’s high rate of divorce, broken homes, delinquent children, prostitution, disease, and the violence and murders committed in connection with sexual passion. (Proverbs 7:10, 25-27) How evident the wisdom of God’s Word! When you reject worldly thinking based on selfish desire and bring your thinking into harmony with Jehovah’s counsel, your heart is greatly strengthened in right desires. Instead of fleeting pleasures of sexual immorality, you enjoy a clean conscience and enduring peace of mind. Marriage and family ties are fortified with the growth of mutual trust between marriage mates and with respect from the children.
23 And do not lose sight of the fact that your very hope of eternal life is involved. So Scriptural morality will contribute to more than your present health. (Proverbs 5:3-11) It will become part of the evidence that you truly deplore the detestable things done by people who have no regard for God and that you have been ‘marked’ for survival into God’s “new earth,” where, not immorality, but righteousness is to dwell. How vital, then, that you ‘do your utmost now to be found finally by God spotless and unblemished and in peace.’—Ezekiel 9:4-6; 2 Peter 3:11-14. Further, I think the will of God in these things can be perceived and it is not left up to the persons in their bedroom to do what they wish. Servants of God are always in God’s view and presence. I think these scriptures bear on the topic.
(Ephesians 5:17) On this account stop being unreasonable, but keep perceiving what the will of Jehovah is.
God’s will can be perceived when we get to know him well from studying the things he says he likes and the things he says he hates.
(Proverbs 3:5, 6) Trust in Jehovah with all your heart, And do not rely on your own understanding. 6 In all your ways take notice of him, And he will make your paths straight.
(Jude 7) . . .. 7 In the same manner, Sodʹom and Go•morʹrah and the cities around them also gave themselves over to gross sexual immorality and pursued unnatural fleshly desires; they are placed before us as a warning example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire.
If he can see our heart and know our thinking, he surely is interested in everything we do – so nothing is out of his range. In all our ways we should take notice of what he wants us to do (bedroom included). We should like the things he likes, and hate the things he hates. Proper view would not come overnight but we can work on it as a work in progress. We will get there. For example, if we are diagnosed with a common disease such as diabetes, hypertension, etc., we don’t go along as usual if we wish a cure or have it under control, we amend our regimen, more exercise, proper diet, less salt, etc. Because we might like certain foods, that does not mean that we can’t forego them so we can have better health. God expects us to give up things that we once did that were part of this world’s darkness so as to have his friendship.
On the matter of the “harm” that is done to couples who desisted from practicing them after coming into the truth, that could be said for also refusing to take blood or obedience to other Godly requirements. We took up our torture stake and agreed to suffer to be friends with God. Anyway, God says he is teaching us to benefit ourselves.
==========
On the matter of the Royal Commission, this showed up a lot of deficiencies, many of which were well itemized in your post. Hope these would be handled better from now on. Recently a letter was read emphasizing that matters of child abuse should be reported to the authorities.

Regarding this thorny issue I feel frankly better after the last changes regarding our policies. What has hinder a better and quicker approach to the problem is, in my opinion, as usual, pride.
·        We’ve seen the secular authorities as antagonist. Judges as enemies, police as intruders, psychologists as obtrusive, social services as snoopers. ·        We’ve seen ourselves as completely and fully trained to deal with these horrors by our means. ·        We’ve treated this sin in the congregation, this frightening sin, as any other sin to deal with. ·        We’ve given more importance to our reputation (God’s name) than the cry of the afflicted I wish we would have been more humble to recognize that:
·        Secular authorities are in a much better position to discover this kind of evil. They can register a home, confiscate a computer or cellular, interrogate neighbors and coworkers. We could not. ·        The vast majority of us aren’t trained to deal with children victims of abuse. Adults accustomed to cheating cheekily, ruthlessly. So, in spite of dozens of letters and schools the elders have attended. ·        This is not a normal sin. This is not as smoking. The child is terrified and ashamed. The wife is afraid to admit it. The two-witness rule cannot apply. We should not face the victim in front of the perpetrator and three other men (the judicial committee). ·        Soon or later everything arises. God’s name would have been cleaner reporting these facts to the authorities, not only allowing the victims to do this, but encouraging them to do this to better protect them. Well, as I’ve mention, our recent policies finally allow:
·        Don’t face victim and accused. ·        Allowing a third person (parents or a friend of the victim) stay with the victim to make her feel more comfortable. ·        At least, not discouraging to go to authorities or search for professional help. ·        The circuit overseer chooses a better qualified elder from outside the congregation to preside the committee. As Anna mention, hope these policies will improve with the blessing of Jehovah.
I’m trying, here in my congregation, to contact with an inactive sister. His father, still a witness in another region, never was disfellowshipped. The elders only had the testimony of one unique witness, the victim. Now many years later this sister is very resentful with the congregation because they “could not help her.” Do you know what will be my first words when I could reach her? “I ask you for forgiveness”.
Are not others also responsible?

Do you like to eat snails, or rabbits?
Disgusting, repulsive! But you know that in some countries these are delicacies. And the same could be said regarding eating snakes or dogs!
This comes up because these strong feelings reflect well the position of the GB about the kind of sexual behavior allowed or not between spouses. At least until recently.
If we review the statements (too long to post them completely) could perceive some evolution.
·        *** w69 3/15 p. 177 par. 14 Living Up to Your Decisions *** “A Christian husband should not be harsh or demanding in this matter […] , perhaps, even expect them to indulge in sexual perversions? […] Keeping busy in the ministry, personal Bible study, meeting preparation and participation, along with other congregational responsibilities, will contribute to self-control.” So, some sexual behavior is seen as perverted. The solution: more Bible study!
·        *** w69 12/15 pp. 765-766 Questions From Readers *** We have received quite a number of inquiries from married persons asking about sexual matters […] These questions have dealt with conjugal acts […] We herein comment on such matters to the extent that we feel authorized to do so.  […] Married persons recognize the obvious way in which the husband’s organ fits into his wife’s birth canal to serve the serious purpose of reproduction. […] Thus it shows that to indulge in such perverted use of the reproductive organs so as to satisfy a covetous desire for sexual excitement is not approved by God. […] In many places even the law of the land backs this up, making certain acts between husband and wife illegal. For example, speaking about the United States, Time of August 8, 1969, observed: “Sodomy is illegal in nearly every state, even between spouses.” […] ) The fact that usually the male has the greater sexual desire suggests that he display a greater measure of self-control, even though his wife lovingly wants to satisfy him. […] However, beyond the above observations about conjugal acts we cannot go. Thus, there is an appropriate way to be good boy, even legal. If the wife agrees, it does not matter. And, as the general topic we’re considering here relates to humility, let’s ponder if the marked bold statements above reflect this quality: “to the extent that we feel authorized to do so…beyond the above observations about conjugal acts we cannot go.” I think it is obvious that the writer feels about himself as authorized to regulate completely the procedures, despite his affirmations.
·        *** w74 11/15 pp. 703-704 Questions From Readers *** That porneia can rightly be considered as including perversions within the marriage arrangement is seen in that the man who forces his wife to have unnatural sex relations with him in effect “prostitutes” or “debauches” her. […] If, on the other hand, the lewd practices were engaged in by mutual consent, […] Both marriage partners are guilty. Such a case, if brought to the attention of elders in the congregation, would be handled like any other serious wrongdoing. There is unnatural sex between spouses. This was seen as deserving of biblical divorce and the elders should disfellowship them if both consent.
·        *** w76 2/15 p. 123 par. 15 You Must Be Holy Because Jehovah Is Holy *** “Later, another issue needed attention. Unnatural practices in connection with sex in marriage, such as oral and anal copulation, have caused some of God’s people to become impure in his eyes.” More on the same line.
·        *** w78 2/15 pp. 30-32 Questions From Readers *** Does the Bible set forth any specific definitions as to what is moral or immoral as regards the sexual relationship between husband and wife? Is it the responsibility of congregational elders to endeavor to exercise control among congregation members in these intimate marital matters? […] A careful further weighing of this matter, however, convinces us that, in view of the absence of clear Scriptural instruction, these are matters for which the married couple themselves must bear the responsibility before God and that these marital intimacies do not come within the province of the congregational elders to attempt to control nor to take disfellowshiping action with such matters as the sole basis. […] This should not be taken as a condoning of all the various sexual practices that people engage in, for that is by no means the case. It simply expresses a keen sense of responsibility to let the Scriptures rule and to refrain from taking a dogmatic stand where the evidence does not seem to provide sufficient basis. [the elders] could not conscientiously recommend him or her for any exemplary service Well, the things begin to change. There is no Scriptural instruction. No expulsion, but no privilege in the congregation. Now, what is important for our consideration about pride or humility, let’s note these statements: “a careful further weighing… refrain from taking a dogmatic stand.” In other words, “we, the writers, the GB, until now and concerning this matter, we have been dogmatic and we had not scriptural basis to sustain our view.” Would not we expect this from humble people?
·        *** w83 3/15 pp. 30-31 Honor Godly Marriage! *** […] As already stated, it is not for elders to “police” the private marital matters of couples in the congregation. However, if it becomes known that a member of the congregation is practicing or openly advocating perverted sex relations within the marriage bond, that one certainly would not be irreprehensible, and so would not be acceptable for special privileges, such as serving as an elder, a ministerial servant or a pioneer. Such practice and advocacy could even lead to expulsion […] . A person who brazenly advocates shocking and repulsive sexual activities would be guilty of loose conduct. This is basically our (GB) present position. Some sexual activities between the matrimony are repulsive. No privileges for these persons. It could lead to expulsion it the brother advocates this kind of behavior.
·        *** W16 8/15 page 15, pf 8. “Although the Bible does not provide specific rules about the kinds and limits of love play that might be associated with natural sexual intimacy, it mentions displays of affection. (Song of Sol. 1:2; 2:6) Christian marriage partners should treat each other with tenderness.” Could this be seen as “new light?” This recent article states (the truth) that the Bible does not provide specific rules nor limits.
Now the damages
About 50 years of statements have been presented. The evolution goes from direct expulsion to only be removed of privileges. And if there is a braze promotion of the practices the consequences could go beyond.
I’m personal witness of the suffering of these standards in a number of couples. For example, in one congregation I was serving both partners agreed in the fact they both find this conduct acceptable. They have been practicing oral sex for some time but one of them, only for the standards in our literature did not want to continue. The other partner confesses me time later that had to resist the temptation to look outside for what was denied within.
Another couple I started to study the Bible with them, have had in the past a sexual conduct far from the Bible principles. He was homosexual, she was a prostitute. When the “proper” sexual behavior between the matrimony arose in the study, they BOTH mention about their necessities, completely different from the standards in our literature. They both told me that they didn’t find disgusting these practices. On time, they stopped studying for several reasons, but I always thought that, at some degree, they found our standards too restrictive.
Finally, in my present congregation, on a shepherding visit to a Christian couple the wife told us (with some shame) that she was willing to (certain practice) with her husband, but she had heard that this was a sin and stopped. The matrimony had trouble since then.
Now, the most important
What does the Bible teach us regarding this matter?
In the Hebrew Scriptures we found some precise regulations about the type of sexual behavior. The sex wasn’t allowed during menstruation. Matrimony between some relatives was forbidden, and so on. And what about the “sexual mechanism” between spouses? Nothing. This was so, despite the fact the Canaanites were a depraved people. They had orgies and male prostitutes, so we can suppose these persons practiced oral and anal sex in their lives. Why did not God specifically prohibit it? This was during an epoch where the conscience had a lesser role in the life of Jehovah’s worshippers and everything had to be more regulated.
In the first century the morality of Greeks and Romans was everything less moral. What advice did the first Christians found in the Greek Scriptures to avoid the depravation? Quite a number, for example, the husband needs to be tender and loving. But what happened if both spouses agreed in some kind of particular sexual conduct between them?
·        (1 Cor 7:2-5) “but because of the prevalence of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife and each woman have her own husband. Let the husband give to his wife her due, and let the wife also do likewise to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does; likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent […] in order that Satan may not keep tempting you for your lack of self-control.” Man and woman are debtors about the sexual necessities of each other. The main factor to determine the sexual conduct is “mutual consent.” What if we wish to be less “tender” and more… you know, the opposite? What if we both agree we both want, we both need, we both find it satisfying some sexual activities? According the above verses, the only answer I can find is to consider this as debt, a necessity to satisfy. And, is not this better that leave my partner “hungry”, exposed to temptation?
 
 
 
When they ask you and you do not know
·        (Mat 17:24-27) “After they arrived in Capernaum, the men collecting the two drachmas tax approached Peter and said: “Does your teacher not pay the two drachmas tax?” He said: “Yes.” However, when he entered the house, Jesus spoke to him first and said: “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth receive duties or head tax? From their sons or from the strangers?” When he said: “From the strangers,” Jesus said to him: “Really, then, the sons are tax-free.” What characteristic did Peter show with this quick answer? Humility? Have you ever face this situation? Someone ask you something, and you are afraid that if you simple say “I don’t know” the consideration of others would decrease? It has happened to me a lot of times! I think it is pride. And this is exactly what I’ve seen in the statements (of the GB) when has tried to regulate this aspect in our life that God himself has not considered necessary to regulate. I sincerely believe these brothers have imposed their preferences about what is correct or wrong in my bedroom. And I’ve seen the hurt of this regulations in the life of people. I hope the path of humility will impose and, perhaps, I will see some apologize…

I remember Armageddon Ernie!!!
It must be wonderful to go in field service with you!
Why do you keep trying to defend something which the GB have themselves admitted as being a mistake on their part?

It wasn’t me who made the first move. It was that bad....um....uh....okay, so it was me. But others joined in taking it elsewhere. And I didn’t persist.
Surely you must have thrown in a cartoon somewhere. Oh...wait....so that you do not make the joke (AGAIN):
Shirley, you must have thrown in a cartoon somewhere. 
(For whatever it is worth, I do follow Scott Adams on Twitter so as to get my daily Dilbert.)

Yesterday I spent all day making a chicken coop and chicken run (apologies to Mel Gibson) door and door frame in my side yard with the frame posts set in concrete, with concrete pedestals which I am calling "STALAG 17", for my wife's new herd of chickens ( They are "Free Range Chickens", which you have no doubt heard about .. from the time that herds of billions of chickens used to roam the Ohio Valley, here in the United States, and Cave Men used to ride giant lizards to round them up, many times driving them off of cliffs to the precipices below, which  only worked infrequently, as they can fly if it's mostly down,  chicken down being a whole other subject, as they use it to fill military flight jackets, which raises the prices so that even down is up ... where was I ... oh yeah ... am I bored today ... for today it is raining and my neighbors are collecting animals (I already have mine, being unconcerned about the extinction of white rhinoceroses, as long as there are chickens, which will never go extinct because they are delicious, and you cannot kill a whole Rhino for one or two sandwiches.
And as far as TPT having "sinful thoughts", as everone knows, the GB do not HAVE sinful thoughts, I am sure NOTHING could be further from the truth, as his perspective is quite different.

There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE when it comes to the notion of Scripture. But the difference is very very little like a speck of dust to the modern English speaking man and or other.
What?
They didn't have anything fancy, that is for sure, unless you are the type to be a bit extra, like the leader of the Jews in that time and or rulers, lords, etc.
Well that is the things of today in your regard. The time of the Christ and people of that age, things were different.

JTR Jr Are you really that bored today ?  Although I'm a bit concerned about this comment of yours. Are you suggesting that TPT has thoughts of a sinful nature ? :) 

NOW! you have ticked me off... STOP CALLING ME SHIRLEY !
( Merely a Pavlonian response ... )

I wonder why the Anointed of God, although self admittedly NOT inspired of God, the ones supplying "food at the proper time", etc., seem to be completely devoid of common sense of any kind, on any subject.
They have been struggling with the CSA problem for YEARS now, and are seemingly no closer to a solution than they were five years ago.
IT'S NOT THAT HARD !!!!!
This is NOT Quantum Chromodynamics!
 

This is the stereotypical Snowflake reaction of someone for whom CONTROL is more important that Truth and relating experiences, wherever the conversation might lead.
It hurts Snowflakes feelings when no one will pay attention to the agenda.
That's how computers work, but human minds, in love with freedom,  wander afield. 
That's why we make them, and they do not make us.

Just thought. To see something, about something, connected to this "Jew group" (in spiritual or literal way) we need, i suppose, opening/overture of observer mind (observer who know what he is searching, looking for, or we can talk also perhaps about some ignorant person, who is, because of divine power will, in position to see important thing, despite his position) by divine power.
Divine power, i guess, is holy spirit, who make it possible that some person can see something. In such situation  we can talk about "inspiration from above", and a harmonized action and interaction of "two earthly elements - observer and Jew", under influence of/from Heaven. 
Here we can see some literal, physical products/fruits of, as Bible explains, holy spirit. Does observer of this fruits need to be inspired (in other words, does god need to open his eyes) to be able to see fruits? Or, natural state of mind and heart is precondition to recognize (or to not recognize) the Jew who produce such fruits as prove that he is this sort of Jew?
 
Do they (JW members or other believers) consider themselves as "fishes" who are already chosen as good fishes, because they found and hold of true Jew hem? Or this separation, made by angels, is applied for all fishes, because net is one, and it was throwing, had thrown, will be throwing on all? 

Most of the Brothers that work at Bethel are Jehovah's Witnesses that are full time volunteers, who basically work for free.  Some are part time and work on an as-needed basis, and for certain lawsuits the Society hires , or partners with outside Law Firms, mainly for their common sense approach to things, but also because of their experience in local court systems, and of course they are paid quite a LOT of money.
...but even Lawyers working for the Society, when working a case outside of Colony Park, which is a closed  and gated township about 30 miles east of Warwick, where the Society has about 2 million dollars worth of residential and multiple use properties to keep the lawyers isolated from Warwick, the Society's Lawyers do not ride the bus to work, or stay in a Motel 6 when they are on the road.
First class accomodations and perks, all the way.  After all, they ARE Lawyers! Not like the great crowd of unwashed window washers, and such.
This was explored in greater detail about 5 years ago here on the Archive, but I cannot find anything, anymore, with format changes.

How, exactly,  was it removed?

I wonder why the Anointed of God, although self admittedly NOT inspired of God, the ones supplying "food at the proper time", etc., seem to be completely devoid of common sense of any kind, on any subject.

Would you want a Surgeon who was equally good at what he does, as the GB is at what they do?
I might consider closing a wound with Vise-Grip pliers, and Duct Tape, instead!

I wonder why the Anointed of God, although self admittedly NOT inspired of God, the ones supplying "food at the proper time", etc., seem to be completely devoid of common sense of any kind, on any subject.
They have been struggling with the CSA problem for YEARS now, and are seemingly no closer to a solution than they were five years ago.
IT'S NOT THAT HARD !!!!!
This is NOT Quantum Chromodynamics!
 

I do appreciate it JWI, when somebody else does the "heavy lifting", in Scriptural analysis and good ol' common sense. I am 72 years old, and I find I do not have the patience. 

... forget what I said 'bout regaining your sanity, Billy.

Would I be an apostate if I told you that the original Paradise was the Garden of Eatin', and what made it a Paradise is that they had pizza delivery?

My mother was cooked in a crematorium, 1200 degrees for three hours.
She made an ash out of herself!
Lighten up Billy ... you may even regain your sanity!  You will certainly be a lot happier, and more pleasant company!

You can't fix stupid ... even with Duct Tape ... BUT WITH DUCT TAPE YOU CAN MUFFLE THE SOUND !

There was a strong odor,  where I could smell BillytheKids46's mother cooking in the kitchen.
There was a strong odor where I could smell,  BillytheKids46's mother cooking in the kitchen.
There,  was a strong odor where I could smell BillytheKids46's mother,  cooking in the kitchen.
Where you put commas are important!

Don't wait for "the situation to be right", TTH, take control!
You could skulk around college gymnasiums, and find the loners and nerd types, even better if they are nerdy loners ...  and offer them beer if they will study the Bible with you,  and try to form relationships. I understand that college kids like beer.
If a college is too far away,  perhaps you can start earlier at Elementary Schools.
Offer them candy. I understand kids LOVE candy.
In the current social environment, what could go wrong?