Anna

3 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

if you do not adhere to the teaching of the overlapping generation, you're out! See the thread about it. 

if it were opinion, then why in the heck do we have dictionaries then? Are those rubbish? 

If it's the same thread, then I have not seen any evidence for being pushed out for having difficulty with the overlapping generation.

You misunderstood, I was referring to the overlapping generation being an opinion. I thought that is what you were talking about.

2 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

The wt requires the jws to align and if they do not they are pushed out.

Well, my opinion on that is different to yours. You can get pushed out for a lot of things that you would get pushed out in any other institution when you don't follow the rules you agreed to. But you make it sound like you get pushed out for having your own thought on something. But this is off topic here. It has been discussed elsewhere.

2 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

I'd rather have questions I cannot answer than answers I cannot question

Of course, I'm with you on that one

2 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

generation - definition? according to whom is the key. 

I understand the definition is an opinion. But that's also discussed in another topic....

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

To me all this shows how susceptible Woodworth was to this "all or nothing" "black and white" thinking. He seems to have had no clue that trying to stay up 5 days in a row might also drive one to the brink of insanity. It is rumored that his work on the Finished Mystery was also done with the same lack of sleep.

People in those days were so "superstitious" and gullible to believing a lot of things. One can understand how the Mormon church got started....and maybe Christian Scientists, but I cannot say for sure because I don't know anything about them.

Russell was quite unique in a way with his "open minded" and reasonable attitude.

19 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Do you really think if it were possible that any resurrected members of the 144000 were to in some way communicate information to faithful Christians on earth this would properly be classed as "spiritism"?

I know this question is not addressed to me, but if I may, I think that that believing that kind of communication would be akin to believing the angel Moroni giving the golden tablets to Joseph Smith.

As I said in my previous comment, I thought this kind of communication ceased after the last of the apostles died. That is why I find the WT quote very atypical and a bit out of place.......and that is why I can safely say the story about angel Moroni is goobledygook or else it's directly from Satan...

8 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

The whole article is to get your head nodding up and down, so when you get to WHY they chose that topic, your head will STILL be nodding up and down.

Well, not everybody is like that are they. But I have to admit when you gotta sleep you gotta sleep...

2 hours ago, Witness said:

You can't be serious.  

Shiwiii attached a document addressing “How to Donate to the Worldwide Work”

At the bottom of the Watchtower article I noted is a long explanation of how to become that "generous person" who "will be blessed":

“How Some Choose To Contribute To The Worldwide Work”

As in the apostle Paul’s day, many today “set something aside,” or budget an amount of money, and place it in the congregation contribution box labeled “Worldwide Work.” (1 Cor. 16:2) Each month, congregations forward these contributions to the office of Jehovah’s Witnesses that serves their branch territory. It is also possible for you to send donations directly to a legal entity that is used by Jehovah’s Witnesses in the country where you reside. To learn the name of the primary legal entity used by Jehovah’s Witnesses in the country where you live, please contact the branch office. The address can be found on www.jw.org. Depending on local conditions, the types of donations that you can send directly may include:

OUTRIGHT DONATIONS

• Donations via electronic bank transfer, debit card, or credit card. In some branches this is also possible using jw.org or another designated website.
• Donations of cash, jewelry, or other valuable personal property. Include a letter indicating that the cash or the item is an outright donation.

CONDITIONAL DONATION ARRANGEMENT

• Donations of cash with the condition that it can be returned if needed by the donor.
• Include a letter stating that the donation is conditional.

CHARITABLE PLANNING

In addition to gifts of money and valuable personal property, there are other ways to benefit Kingdom service worldwide. These are listed below. Regardless of the method or methods you would like to use, please first contact the branch office that serves your branch territory to see which avenues are available. Since legal requirements and tax laws vary, it is important to consult qualified tax and legal advisers before choosing the best way to donate.

Insurance and Retirement Plans: A donation made by specifying an entity used by Jehovah’s Witnesses as the beneficiary of a life insurance policy, individual retirement account, or a retirement/pension plan.

Bank Accounts: Bank accounts may be made payable on death to an entity used by Jehovah’s Witnesses in accord with local bank requirements.

Stocks and Bonds: Stocks and bonds donated to an entity used by Jehovah’s Witnesses as an outright gift or by means of a written agreement to transfer on death.

Real Estate: Salable real estate donated to an entity used by Jehovah’s Witnesses, either by making an outright gift or, in the case of residential property, by reserving a life estate to the donor, who can continue to live in the residence during his or her lifetime.

Wills and Trusts: Property or money may be bequeathed to an entity used by Jehovah’s Witnesses by means of a legally executed will or by specifying the entity as the beneficiary of a trust agreement. This arrangement may provide certain tax advantages.

As the term “charitable planning” implies, these types of donations typically require some planning on the part of the donor. To assist individuals desiring to benefit the worldwide work of Jehovah’s Witnesses through some form of charitable giving, a brochure entitled Charitable Planning to Benefit Kingdom Service Worldwide has been prepared in English and Spanish. The brochure was written to provide information on a variety of ways that gifts may be made now or later, such as through a bequest at death. The information covered in this brochure may not apply fully to your situation because of tax laws or other laws in the country where you reside. By using such methods of charitable giving, many have helped to support our religious and humanitarian activities worldwide and maximize tax benefits. If available in the country where you reside, the brochure may be obtained by requesting a copy from the secretary of the local congregation.

For more information, select the link “Make a Donation to Our Worldwide Work” at the bottom of any page on jw.org, or contact the branch office.

 

 

What are you getting all all upset about. Surely there is nothing wrong with information for anyone who wants to contribute on ways how to do it?

On 9/18/2017 at 8:20 PM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Of course ... evidence of THAT will be unmistakable .... no need at all for any interpretation or explanation.

It will be instantly self-evident.

Until then ... they are having a grand old time spending the 56 MILLION DOLLARS they were forwarded by the Universal Postal Union as their share of the  80 MILLION DOLLARS in international postage spent to send them letters to help with prayers to achieve religious liberty for the Brotherhood in Russia, recently.

  ( The terminal duty for Russian International postage ... the amount they get for delivering mail from other countries to addresses in Russia is 70% of the face value of the postage affixed...).

And the 11 boxcars filled with mail ... sitting on a railroad siding somewhere in Russia, will keep a LOT of Russians in "fuel at the proper time" in their cast-iron pot bellied stoves this winter.

If they DO send a thank-you letter to the governing Body in Warwick, they can send it by diplomatic mail franking, and not spend a single kopeck (1/100 of a Ruble ... their equivalent of a penny) for postage.

They may have to spend SOME of the money the Brotherhood gave them for meds to stop the uncontrollable laughter.

Come on JTR, get with the spirit of solidarity. How do you think it made the friends in Russia feel when they knew every one of their friends outside of Russia sent a personal letter to their country's leaders in protest?

On 9/18/2017 at 5:56 PM, Shiwiii said:

I have NEVER, EVER seen this

My step son is a Mormon and they tithe 10%

and here are links where you can read up about the topic of passing plates

http://www.churchmarketingsucks.com/2009/03/passing-the-plate-poll-results/

http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/2009/march/passing-plate.html

The only reason why passing the plate might peter out in the future is because less and less people carry paper money and more will want to pay by card or check. Tithing no doubt will stay for some denominations.

On 9/17/2017 at 10:39 PM, Witness said:

There's a recent Watchtower study edition on this very topic.  “The Generous Person Will Be Blessed”  11/2017, pp. 18,19

Quote:  "We can be assured that “the generous person will be blessed.” Moreover, when we give our valuable things (monetary valuables, of course) to Jehovah, we honor him.—Prov. 3:9;22:9."

Not according to Jesus, or his apostles.

Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”  Matt 19:21

“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money."  Matt 6:24

"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." 1 Tim 6:10

"Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. 18 Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. 19 In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life."  1 Tim 6:17-19

Obviously, the GB has it all wrong.  

"Whoever loves money never has enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with their income.This too is meaningless."  Eccl 5:10

 

 What you are talking about is not what the WT is talking about. Completely different topic.

1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

It's thoughts like these that make me question the devotion to each and every teaching that comes from the wt's mouth as if it WERE from God. Obey or else! Why is there no allowance for personal opinion/understanding? What about all of those folks who thought that it was probably ok to take SOME blood fractions, or organs prior to the change made by the wt? Doesn't really matter now, they're dead.....well you get the point. 

Well, I don't feel this is an obey or else scenario at all. As you see, there is an allowance for personal opinion/understanding. As for those who thought it was ok to take some blood fractions or organs prior to the change, well as you say, it doesn't matter now, they're dead (I presume you mean because of old age) so the point is, in the end we all must make our OWN decisions, and not blame the WT for them if we later change our mind....

@AllenSmith I don't know why you quoted most of

the the WT. The problem is not when the resurrection to heaven was to have taken place but these assumptions:

9 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

in the vision John must represent anointed ones on earth who have not yet received their heavenly reward.

and

9 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

It seems that resurrected ones of the 24-elders group may be involved in the communicating of divine truths today.

Both these statements are speculative.

9 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

If one of the 24 elders was used to convey that important truth,

This is basically saying that Rutherford was contacted by one of the resurrected anointed and told (in a vision or a dream perhaps?) who the great crowd was. Is this likely, considering that Jehovah does not communicate like this with anyone on earth today? It makes no logical sense. We know the Slave is not inspired, and we also know communication with the spirit world, except with Jehovah, through Jesus, by means of prayer, is forbidden.  So the idea about communication between the anointed in heaven and earth TODAY is not Scriptural at all. The only thing that leads us today is the holy spirit, Jehovah's active force, and as we know, anyone can ask for it and receive it, and it is not a person.

12 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

She did not care at all for the hurt she caused others and obviously did not care about her status after disfellowshipping because when given the choice to alter her conduct to enable her father to continue providing her with a home, she chose to leave.

Yup, such is the pull of the opposite sex!

11 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

"In our area some disfellowshiped ones with large families have been met, as they enter the lobby of the Kingdom Hall, with a fanfare of backslapping and handshaking (even though the disfellowshiped one was known by them to be still living immorally).

That is ridiculous of course especially when that person was still known to be living immorally. But it is a far cry from discretely keeping in touch with someone who albeit being disfellowshipped, is no longer practicing what they were disfellowshipped for. And that's the situation I'm talking about. However, the video even condemns that.

11 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

But hasn't Jehovah put Caeser's law in place? Rom.13:1? Isn't it so that what Jehovahs allows, He has put in place?

I know what you are trying to say, but clearly there are some things that are happening that are apparently being allowed that Jehovah has definitely not put in place...think of anything that has had a detrimental effect on some, for example faulty child abuse policies we have had in the past. Jehovah allows mistakes, and eventually these mistakes are rectified. These mistakes help us become stronger if we don't allow them to break us. Iron sharpens iron.

I agree with most of your reasoning and thank you for taking your time to address this issue. It helped to put things into proper perspective.  I am not going to let this issue become my Achilles heel. I know what I feel in my gut (obviously based on a Bible trained conscience) and I have basically done this most of my life as a JW, and many times my gut feelings were proved correct.  I am glad I do this because I will never blame the "truth" or the Elders or anyone because whatever I do, it is because I choose to do it (or not do it), not because someone said I should or shouldn't. And this case will be the same. So one day IF our stance on disfellowshipped loved ones changes, I will not become resentful because I will have been doing what I felt was right anyway.....

As regards the answer to the original topic for discussion "is there a contradiction with regard to freedom to change one's religion"? I think JW Insider nailed it when he said that: "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 and 2 Peter 2:20-22  So, scripturally, there appears to be no problem with the belief itself that this is only a one-way street".

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

*** w07 1/1 p. 28 par. 11 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! ***

• It seems that resurrected ones of the 24-elders group may be involved in the communicating of divine truths today. Why is that important? Because the correct identity of the great crowd was revealed to God’s anointed servants on earth in 1935. If one of the 24 elders was used to convey that important truth, he would have had to be resurrected to heaven by 1935 at the latest. That would indicate that the first resurrection began sometime between 1914 and 1935.

Yet, as soon as it comes to our belief that those persons of the 144,000 who died are still alive as spirit creatures, then we think that we can safely ignore what we have condemned others for believing.

 

I know. This is the craziest idea ever put in writing in any of our magazines. When I read it at the time I couldn't believe it...especially when used to support the identity of the great crowd and in turn to support the resurrection occurring between 1914 and 1935.  I wonder who came up with that idea and how it could have been sanctioned. This is the kind of reasoning I would expect in Russell's day, not 10 years ago! I think I've already had a rant about this somewhere, if yes, sorry for the repetition

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

If we are not proud enough of a practice to explain it up front as part of the conversion process, and explained by an elder prior to baptism, then, of course, we should change the practice.

Precisely. But it gets a little more complicated because people can be mislead into thinking something else to what can actually happen in practice as is evident in the answers to FAQ

https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/resign/#?insight[search_id]=475f2def-a58d-4618-aec5-5b7ebdc2505e&insight[search_result_index]=1

and

https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/

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

 And another way to look at the verses above (about returning to vomit, re-nailing the Son of God), is that they are not about any specific religious organization, but about a specific type of personal relationship with Jehovah that is rejected.

Interesting

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.

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!

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 .

2 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Then, I respond kind with kind, and I hope it is understood since many here resort to the same, at any given time.

Ummmm...something tells me this is not the correct Christian attitude

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

f a loony-bin liar carries on about the GB, it is 'one of those things.' Everyone knows his pathetic hatred.

But if he starts lying about Prince, MY PRINCE, THEN he has crossed a line of decency. Before he slanders the man, he should list each transgression he thinks he 'got away with' accompanied by proof and um - to quote his constant refrain - "FACTS!! DOES ANYBODY KNOW WHAT FACTS ARE?! " without which rants are worth (to use his favorite words)

        "ZIP - ZERO - NADA"

I think he will not find any.

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.

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.

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.

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

On 9/3/2017 at 4:09 AM, Gone Fishing said:

At that time, Eve became disenamoured with her religion, and, fully believing that her former religion was wrong, made a choice that that impacted on her family relationships. Adam was later faced with the dilemna you have described above.

That is a good parallel and I know what you are trying to say. Basically that we need to show loyalty to God by rejecting individuals who have broken their vow of loyalty. But I can't hep but attempt to punch a few holes in this. Well, probably just one: Does it mean that if Adam wanted to keep loyal, he would have not only rejected the fruit but also Eve? 

As we know, after they had both sinned they lived together for centuries thereafter and had a number of children. This could be likened to what happens if one of the marriage partners is disfellowshipped, this does not dissolve the marriage, and indeed things should go along as normal. (I wonder,  if Adam had rejected the fruit, would Jehovah have allowed Eve to live out her imperfect life as she did originally?) Also if a minor still living in the household is disfellowshipped, the child is not shunned. But as we know, like the turn of a switch, the relationship changes dramatically once the child leaves home. I just cannot wrap my head around this seemingly superficial handling of something that can be very traumatic, mainly for the innocent party. Most of all, that the choice of treatment of disfellowshipped individuals is not left up to the innocent party, but that the innocent party is told (many times over and over) not to have ANY contact with the disfellowshipped family member regardless if the family member has ceased sinning but just does not want to be JW anymore.  So...in line with the question "should someone who wants to quit being one of Jehovah's Witnesses be made to chose between his beliefs and the family" the answer is NO,  but the  reality is different, if they want to resume their relationship with the family they have to get re-instated, or if they have changed their beliefs they better keep it a secret to avoid getting disfellowshipped and thus shunned. Stuck between a rock and a hard place. 

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".  https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning

The funny thing is, in reality most Witnesses will keep their association with family who are  living a dubious life style but are not disfellowshipped to a minimum anyway, without needing any prompts from the Slave. There is a couple in our hall who have drifted and no longer go to meetings. They smoke pot and celebrate their kid's birthdays. Their parents are not buddy buddy with them at all and keep association to a minimum, but they DO communicate normally (which they wouldn't/couldn't if they were dfd.) and they have the grand children over whenever, and take that opportunity to tell them about Jehovah and take them to the meetings. That couple is as good as disfellowshipped, and so they are held at arms length without having anyone tell them how to act.

This is not all I wanted to write really and it's rather haphazard as I am still really strapped for time but I wanted to at least say something....