Anna

16 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Temple Farm,

I don't like the sound of that name, makes me think Mormon. Actually when you first posted this story a few months ago I thought it was about a Mormon farm!

Nice article in next week's workbook to be given as a talk Theme: "Does Jehovah Assess in Advance How Much Pressure We Can Bear and Then Choose the Trials We Will Face?". I thought it could apply to this topic quite well too.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-february-2017/does-god-determine-trials-we-will-face/

53 minutes ago, ImStrugglingBad said:

Every day since I was a teenager, I've wondered whether Jehovah would approve of me in the new world. I know he loves me, but I don't know that he approves of me.

Dear @ImStrugglingBad , actually, we ARE all perverted, diseased, and completely inadequate.  If Jehovah didn't approve of you, then he would not be able to approve of ANY of us. Jehovah looks at these thing differently to us, and although our hearts can condemn us, he does not. He knows our imperfections and weaknesses are not our fault and you must believe that too. I heard one brother reason once that Jehovah is the only one who can see our potential, how we will be when all our imperfections are removed from us. That makes sense because Jehovah has that ability to project into the future if he wants. So he can see you perfect in the new world, and that is why you can meet his approval already now. Does that make sense?

So please don't think that you existing brings reproach on him.  On the contrary, you existing gives him another opportunity to call Satan a liar. It's like True Tom said,  in today's society  " It’s a herculean time for a gay person to be “fighting the fine fight.” 

Please, don't give up. Stay with all of his Witnesses who are all trying their best to cope with Satan's world where good is made to be bad, and bad is made to look good.  And when I said seek expert help, I meant especially regarding your suicidal thoughts. Any time you need to talk you can send me a direct message.

15 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Singleness as a way of life was once a quite common and respectable lifestyle, with no connotations whatsoever of abnormality. Read the classics and that point is easily established. But today, largely through the media, everything is sex, and people have come to define themselves in terms of their sexuality. It’s a herculean time for a gay person to be “fighting the fine fight.”

A good observation that is sometimes forgotten

15 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

There is that verse somewhere that says 'I am convinced there is nothing to come between us and God's love (or is it Christ's?) neither this nor that nor a long list of hardships.' I like that verse. 

The scripture is Romans 8: 38, 39. I made a point of memorizing it as it is one of my favorite scriptures.

" For I am convinced that neither death nor life nor angels nor governments nor things now here nor things to come nor powers nor height nor depth nor any other creation will be able to separate us from God’s love that is in Christ Jesus our Lord".

It was at one of the conventions last year, where it followed the story of the young brother who played the violin, I think. He went through all kinds of challenges that tested his faith, including persecution, and in the end a test of faith as he prepared to go in for life threatening surgery. This scripture was something that his father told him when he was young, and it stuck with him all his life. He said no matter what trials life threw at him, he was going to let nothing separate him from Jehovah and Jesus.

I couldn't help but notice this plea by our brother @ImStrugglingBadand fell compelled to say something too. The trials imposed on us by our imperfections are especially testing, and more so when they involve strong emotion and desire for companionship. That urge can be so strong for heterosexuals too that they will sometimes do anything to satisfy it, even putting their relationship with Jehovah in jeopardy. There is nothing wrong with yearning for companionship of course, but due to inherited imperfection in the case of someone with homosexual tendencies, it is misdirected, and because of that, it is bad. I always feel so sorry for our friends who are struggling with this particular type of imperfection. (My hair stylist, who is a brother, is struggling in this way) It's like they are in no man's land. It's often compared to someone who is heterosexual not being able to find a mate, and as a result staying celibate. But it's not quite like that. The heterosexual person knows that the potential for finding a partner is there, however the person with homosexual leanings knows there is no way he can satisfy that desire until in the new system when that desire becomes correctly channeled towards the opposite sex.  Homosexual desires are nothing but another type of imperfection that we have Satan to thank for. But it's particularly cruel type of imperfection for the reasons already mentioned above. It always makes me hate Satan that much more.

Please, @ImStrugglingBadhang in there. Get some help from experts who respect your religious belief. Get busy doing things for others so that thinking about yourself becomes less overwhelming. And mainly, please, rest assured that Jehovah cares for you deeply and that he cannot wait to heal you, and all of us. Be convinced that "nothing will be able to separate you from God's love"

On 9/1/2017 at 9:53 PM, Anna said:

So I guess no one wants to have a go at solving this apparent discrepancy? Anyone?? @JW Insider, @Gone Fishing, @TrueTomHarley

Thank you all for your responses! Glad to see you're back from fishing @Gone Fishing, I thought you might have drowned!  I have just been so busy lately and although I have read everyones comments I have not had the chance to reply. I need to read them again, properly and carefully, before I respond,  and right now I have just too much going on. Looking forward to it though . Thanks again!

9 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

My point is: it doesn't matter if there is an announcement or not. Joining another faith is, from our point of view, an apostasy, and no one in the Witness community would thereafter associate with the person - it's not that their arm has to be twisted by the GB - they know it from the scriptures

That is true to a point, and especially with regard to the JW community in general. However, with family it IS different, if we are going to be honest about it. If there was  an option whereby a family was able to associate with an apostate loved one and it was deemed OK, I am sure there would be many families who would. I can give you examples of quite a few, whose family members were raised as JW but picked another religion (my step son became a Mormon) and the other JW family members freely associate with them, some more, some less. Why, because they never chose to get baptized as JW. But really, they knew the truth, just didn't appeal to them for whatever reason. But if one gets baptized, and later on the truth loses it's appeal and they "apostatize" then that's a whole different story as we know. But really, the only difference is a vow that they broke between themselves and Jehovah. The vow wasn't made between themselves and the family, it is exclusively between them and God, so why should family loyalty/disloyalty play a part in that equation at all?

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The person departing does not have to choose to leave his/her family. The family, however, might choose to no longer associate with him. They likely will - if they value what makes the truth the truth.

If we are going to be honest about this though, those who do wish to depart are very often at a dilemma because they know that if they do, the family will- if they value what makes the truth the truth - no longer speak with him. This dilemma has caused many to try and get around it by purposefully slowly drifting, without getting disfellowshipped, or, if already disfellowshipped, plan to make a show of coming back, get re-instated, and then become inactive.  I know of both scenarios personally.  And it is becoming more and more the norm now, as people are "wising up". Now what is the point of that? 

"This builds off the Witness assumption, held by few others,  that not all roads lead to heaven and that, if one would survive into the new order, one must serve God according to his standards and his truths. Therefore the ultimate goal in avoiding a family member who departs for different beliefs is to help him see he must 'straighten out and fly right' spiritually, thus re-uniting the family forever spiritually and otherwise"

Yes, I know that!.

It's the "wrench" that is what my concern is:

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Some of what throws a wrench into this discipline for ultimately a good cause  [bold mine] is that, in many cases, the departing one no longer worries about living forever - on earth or anywhere else. He or she has gone atheistic and have thought the remaining few decades a cool bargain, with no sense of being cheated from all eternity. When the world embraces atheism, all sorts of paradigms shift.

Exactly

When it comes down to the grass roots, it’s all a numbers game. What would kings be without subjects? Governments have been overthrown and changed by the sheer power of numbers. If there is no support for a cause or idea, it dies out. No matter how ingenious. The only being that doesn’t need numbers is God. He needs nobody’s support to exist or to be the rightful sovereign. He needs nothing at all. He is the arbiter of right and wrong, he is the ultimate lawmaker.

On the other hand the GB need  numbers because without numbers it would be just them sitting in their office and Jehovah would have to have the stones cry out instead. If NO one cooperated with a policy, then this policy would fall flat, it would just be on paper. If EVERY member of JWs decided they would no longer cooperate with certain policies, where would those policies be? Of course this is not likely ever to happen, but the point I am trying to make is that many policies exist only because of the support they get. (and I am obviously not talking about what’s black and white in the Bible). So the GB are by no means unaffected by numbers. I dare to go as far as giving an example with the shaking up with regards to child sexual abuse. The society is and has changed the policies BECAUSE of numbers. The item at the convention about protecting our children was in response to the shake up. Had no one ever said anything, there would likely be no talk. Some have tried for this change decades before, but it took a government, (and one that made all the hearings transparent and available on line for anyone to reference), to make change happen. We are only human, the GB are only human, they need US to make anything “work”. The recent CO we had made an interesting remark, which when he said it made me remember something JWInsider said on here once. When I commended him for something he (the CO) said, he replied that “he just put it out there, to see if it will stick”. This is similar to saying if it gets support, we will go with it. This was in a small scale apparently what the GB do. Sometimes it is merely trial and error. If we get too strict here…we might alienate our friends… If we are too lax here we might lose them to sin….

Br. Jackson, during the inquiry into institutional child sexual abuse, conceded that yes, there are some things in our (at that time current policy), that can be changed if they don’t go against our understanding of scripture, or their principles. Why didn’t these things get changed before? Because they were never brought up, at least not by an entity that mattered.

Why, numbers matter in a congregational setting too. If everyone complains about brother so and so, you can bet something will be done, rather than if no one says anything. It’s part of one of our policies too, judicial cases are set up when they meet certain criteria, and one of these criteria is how wide spread is the case regarding the accused known, do many people know about it, or have many people complained about it….

So the point I am trying to make is that some things have and can change depending on the “notoriety” these thing get. And JWs as an organization are not immune to this. I’m still waiting for when families of disfellowshipped ones will not be “made” to shun their loved ones, but it will be left up to them whether they do so or not.

6 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

We are thinking adults ... not children .

The response is for children.

I agree with you there JTR

9 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

All this incessant sniping at the GB is little more than the back-seat kids of yesteryear responding to dad's rebuke: "do YOU like dad?' 'No, I don't like dad at all -he's mean. If only dad would go jump in a lake. Then we could be like Howie Hoodlimm next door and Willie Watever down the street - their dads let them do whatever they want.

Well this is not what I had in mind when I raised the question. I genuinely would like to know if I have missed something, or misunderstood something. So I thought someone might be able to explain it. When the article in the Awake first came out, I wondered about it then. Here is the whole article for reference if someone wants to read it:

Quote

The Bible’s Viewpoint
Is It Wrong to Change Your Religion?
When Avtar began studying the Bible, her Sikh family was upset. “In my homeland,” she says, “changing your religion cuts you off from the community. Even our names have religious meaning. To change your religion is viewed as rejecting your identity and disrespecting your family.”
AVTAR eventually became one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Was she wrong to change her religion? Perhaps you identify with her family. You may feel that your religion is inextricably linked with family history and culture and should not be changed.
Honoring one’s family is important. The Bible says: “Listen to your father who caused your birth.” (Proverbs 23:22) But it is more important to seek to know the truth about our Creator and his purposes. (Isaiah 55:6) Is such a search possible? If so, how important is this search to you?
Searching for Religious Truth
The world’s religions teach conflicting ideas. Logically, those teachings cannot all be true. As a result, there must be many people who, as the Bible says, “have a zeal for God; but not according to accurate knowledge.” (Romans 10:2) Yet, as recorded at 1 Timothy 2:4, the apostle Paul says that it is God’s will that “all sorts of men . . . come to an accurate knowledge of truth.” How can such accurate knowledge be found?
Consider reasons for examining the Bible. Paul, who was an inspired Bible writer, stated: “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching.” (2 Timothy 3:16) As part of your search for truth, examine the evidence that the Bible’s claim is true. Investigate for yourself its unparalleled wisdom, historical accuracy, and fulfilled prophecy.
Instead of presenting all religions as equal approaches to God, the Bible tells its readers not to believe everything they hear but to “test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God.” (1 John 4:1) For example, any teaching that truly originates with God must be in harmony with his personality, including his dominant quality of love.—1 John 4:8.
The Bible assures us that God wants us to “really find him.” (Acts 17:26, 27) Since our Creator wants us to search for truth, it cannot be wrong to act on the evidence that we find—even if this means changing our religion. But what about the problems that this may bring?
Balancing Family Loyalty
When people change their beliefs, they may decide that they will no longer share in certain religious rituals or holidays. Understandably, this can result in strong feelings within the family. Jesus acknowledged this. He told his followers: “I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a young wife against her mother-in-law.” (Matthew 10:35) Did Jesus mean that Bible teachings were designed to be an unavoidable cause of contention? No. He simply foresaw what could happen when family members react negatively to one who takes a firm stand for beliefs different from theirs.
Should family conflict be avoided at all costs? The Bible teaches that children should be obedient to parents and that wives should be in subjection to their husbands. (Ephesians 5:22; 6:1) However, it instructs those who love God to “obey God as ruler rather than men.” (Acts 5:29) Thus, at times, loyalty to God may result in your making a decision that is unpopular with some family members.
Although the Bible makes a clear distinction between true and false teachings, God allows each person the freedom to choose how he or she will respond. (Deuteronomy 30:19, 20) No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family. Does study of the Bible lead to family breakup? No. In fact, the Bible encourages a husband and wife who practice different religions to remain together as a family.—1 Corinthians 7:12, 13.
Overcoming Fears
You may fear how the community will react if you study the Bible with Jehovah’s Witnesses. Mariamma says: “My family was worried that I would not be able to find a suitable husband who could provide for me. So they opposed my Bible study.” Mariamma put her trust in Jehovah God and continued studying. (Psalm 37:3, 4) You can do the same. Rather than fear the results, consider the benefits. The Bible’s message changes lives and personalities for the better. People learn to show unselfish love for their family. Bad habits, such as verbal and physical violence and abuse of alcohol and drugs, can be overcome. (2 Corinthians 7:1) The Bible promotes such wholesome traits as loyalty, honesty, and industriousness. (Proverbs 31:10-31; Ephesians 4:24, 28) Why not study the Bible and see the benefits of applying its teachings in your life?

Awake 7/09

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Write them. Ask them to explain it, unless the context of the article does.

 

Good point about the context, that’s always important of course. The context in both articles is that they assume that JWs  are the true religion. But that should not be the deciding factor. As the first article goes on to say: “Although the Bible makes a clear distinction between true and false teachings, God allows each person the freedom to choose how he or she will respond. (Deuteronomy 30:19, 20) No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family”

So if we have previously responded favorably, but now have changed our mind, does that change the dynamics of that statement? Besides “choosing death instead of life”, as per Deuteronomy, is there any reason why the person should be shunned as per the second article? I guess, to answer my own question it all depends if the person is disfellowshipped or not. So the second question would be “should a person be disfellowshiped for changing their belief” which goes back to the topic “Should JW's punish, disfellowship, or shun members who disagree with certain teachings” and I have no idea what the conclusion on that topic was as I got lost in the amount of postings (8 pages in 6 days) besides some quality input from JWInsider and you, all I know is that it ran off poor Bruce and that JTR had his fare share of input with cartoons, and that it digressed to the Walsh Trial, and a list of teachings JWs have wrong, then some backward and forward with Nanna and Albert etc. but has there been any conclusive ….umm… conclusion regarding the actual question?

On 8/31/2017 at 0:25 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

realizing they leave a permanent online trial

You mean trail of course...

Does that mean I never get top prize again?

On 8/28/2017 at 10:11 PM, JW Insider said:

 .....questions during a meeting were more like:

• "And can anyone see why this teaching might be difficult to explain to someone at the door?"
• "Would someone like to offer a Biblical reason why this proposed doctrine might not be correct?"
• "The talk this Sunday will be 30 minutes based on the new outlines: Brother Smithsonian will speak to us for 15 minutes about why the 'little flock' and 'other sheep' could refer to spiritual Israel and spiritual Gentiles. Then Brother Johnsonian will speak to us for 15 minutes about why the 'little flock' and 'other sheep' could refer to literal Israel and  literal Gentiles. So we'll want to put on our thinking caps for that one."

It sounds like you fell out of bed and banged your head really hard! Lol 

On 8/27/2017 at 8:09 PM, Anna said:

Referring to people leaving their religion to join Jehovah's Witnesses:

"No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family".  Awake 7/09 page 29

AND

Regarding those disfellowshipped from Jehovah's Witnesses:

"Really, what your beloved family member needs to see is your resolute stance to put Jehovah above anything else - including the family bond.....Do not look for excuses to associate with a disfellowshipped family member, for example, through email" p.16, paragraph 19, Study WT Jan / 2013

In the above situation we are assuming that the reason for disfellowshipping was because of changing one's religion and/or apostasy (not because of immorality etc.)

So I guess no one wants to have a go at solving this apparent discrepancy? Anyone?? @JW Insider, @Gone Fishing, @TrueTomHarley, or even @Allen Smith  

5 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I upvote ANYBODY when what they say is true, and/or really applicable.

 

I like this illustration (and so do you judging by the amount of times you've posted it). Of course both are true, depending on your vantage point. But all it illustrates is that there are several ways of looking at things and they may all be true depending on where you are. I think that was your point. Of course this does nothing to illustrate the "truth" (universal truth) we are talking about as JWs.

Universal truth: There are absolutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round squares

16 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I am rethinking it.

What are you talking about, you never upvote anybody anyway.....you're mean

3 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I find it amusing and sad at the same time that through the Watchtower, we had to be counseled that we could no longer KILL OUR APOSTATE RELATIVES!

( ... probably advice from the Society's Lawyers and Accountants...)

.

 

Awwww...."shakes head"....JTR!

3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Makes one ponder when so-called "brothers" upvote an apostate.

What about when an apostate upvotes a brother? Gulp

8 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

if it goes back from before I was born, I lose interest

I know what you're saying, but years in themselves don't nullify what happened. If that were the case, then we wouldn't be able to point to the Catholic's sordid past (inquisitions etc.) as an example of why they are bad. Of course I'm comparing apples to oranges...

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

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

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

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

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

22 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

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

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

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

5 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

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

The apparent implication of this statement was clarified in the dialogue that followed, (immediately after that statement - so there cannot be any confusion as to what exactly was meant) as I have already indicated above.