Anna

1 hour ago, Albert Michelson said:

That is not true many children are threatened with being thrown out if they don't get baptized. And I know many who were never baptized but still get shunned because the have spoken out. 

That may be true, but it is an exclusively personal thing, nothing that's taught by the org.

2 hours ago, Albert Michelson said:

The problem of course is what I mentioned earlier.  Geoffrey Jackson  out right lied when he said that you could tell anyone you wanted you're no longer a Jehovah's Witness without repercussions.

 

59 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

That's his exact words.

Is this the part you are referring to:

     Q.  " If someone no longer wants to be known as one of

           Jehovah's Witnesses, they must then disassociate; is that right?

     A.   Again, please, if they want to take the action of

        doing that.  But, of course, they have total freedom.  If

        they don't want to apply to officially be removed as one of

        Jehovah's Witnesses, they can tell anyone they want that

        they are no longer a Jehovah's Witness".

I do not see anything about no repercussions. In fact in context of the rest of the dialogue, Jackson makes it clear that there MAY be repercussions, depending on the circumstances:

Q.   "Leaving that to one side, the point is, for example,

 if the elders visited and found the person to be living in  sin in the eyes of the Jehovah's Witnesses, then the elders

  would, following the process and procedures, discipline

  that person under the rules of the organisation - not so?

 A.   Yes, like, in a situation where it was found that

someone who claimed to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses was

living in sin, then the elders would try to ascertain,

well, what needs to be done?  We obviously want to help the

person, so the first step would be to ascertain, do they

want to come back, are they willing to change what they are

doing?  And if, ultimately, the person is willing to talk

to us, then, yes, that would be involved with the judicial

process.

              

Q.   But if they are not, then either they must disassociate or they will be disfellowshipped?

 A.   That would be in that particular case, but I can think of many scenarios where it wouldn't be".

 

I can think of many scenarios where it wouldn't be either. In fact I KNOW of many scenarios personally where someone is no longer a JW (is living in sin, celebrates Birthdays and Christmas etc.) but has not dissasociated and has not been disfellowshipped. So he is not lying, and not making this up.

37 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

out right lied when he said that you could tell anyone you wanted you're no longer a Jehovah's Witness without repercussions

I don't think that is quite how he put it.

12 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

I wouldn't call having the freedom to leave without being shunned "a free for all"

That's not what I meant. I meant the freedom to believe what one wants, and for the most part do what one wants. Most don't care, as long as they get your "membership" and your money.

16 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

 Most people in other religions are part of a specific group because they personally agree with the teachings

I would go even further than that. I would say they shop around to see which teachings agree with them. I had this discussion with my cousin, who is a baptized Catholic, but has not set foot inside a church for years until his wedding to the woman he was living with for several years (who is also Catholic) and has not set foot inside it since. As a side point they has a son out of wedlock who was 5 by the time they tied the knot, and one of the criterion for the wedding in the church was that they got their son baptized as a Catholic. Anyway, he also believes a host of other things; bits and pieces of shamanism, Buddhism etc..in fact, he really doesn't believe much of Catholicism. Anyway, back on track, our conversation was about humans picking and choosing the ideologies which suit them. I said that is how people choose their religion, they choose the one that suits them most. He agreed and said "you did too". So that's where he was wrong. I am not saying such beliefs as living forever on paradise earth and seeing loved ones being brought back to life are not attractive and do not play a role,  but it's far more than that. Most Witnesses will be who they are because of an unselfish love for God and and desire to please him, not themselves.

40 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

 The way you phrased this makes it seem like the witness method of coercion and blackmail is superior to Christendom's method ( granted this wasn't always the case they too used to use threats and persecution to get what they wanted as well

I like how you sneaked this one in. In actuality there is no comparison of course. Christendom forced people to convert under threats if they didn't. Joining JWs is a completely free exercise of one's will, free of any threats, including shunning. In fact joining JWs under duress or blackmail would be a completely pointless exercise for everyone involved.

49 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

My answer is a definite no

Well I know that

The point of this topic is to explore what seem to be contradictory quotes as pointed out in the introduction of this thread. I shouldn't have phrased what I said the way I did.

4 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

"Making known a firm decision to be known no longer as one ofJehovah's Witnesses

Dissasociation

4 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

If the individual has joined another religious organization and intends to remain with it, he has disassociated himself. 

Well that's logical isn't it?

 

8 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

they all involve actions taken by the elders without the permission of the individual and without considering whether or not they truly want it to happen. For example someone may join another religion, take a job that would classify as non-neutral or receive a blood transfusion. They may feel that there is nothing wrong with these things and also feel as though they do not wish to disassociate themselves

Simply put, and in a nutshell, you cannot be one of Jehovah's Witnesses if you disagree with any of the fundamental teachings and make it an issue in the congregation.  It's logical. Unlike Christendom, where it's a free for all, Jehovah's Witnesses for the most part, believe all their core teachings. If there is something they feel very strongly about, and no longer believe it is true, to the point of not being able to remain one of Jehovah's Witnesses in good conscience, then they dissasociate themselves. This is a choice they make willingly. Conversely, it's impossible to be called a Witnesses if you willingly and unrepentantly  do the things you mention either.  If you join a club, you've got to abide by the club's rules, or you will have your membership revoked. Or if you no longer like the club's rules, you cease being a member (dissasociate yourself)

The question though is, and this leads it back on topic, should someone who wants to quit being one of Jehovah's Witnesses be made to chose between his beliefs and the family.

2 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

Yes just not in the way you implied.

I was only going by what I thought you were implying. But now that you've clarified what you meant, we can say it's not about numbers either way.

2 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

By bolstering numbers  I wasn't suggesting that  their goal is to get as many members as possible.  What I was saying is that the goal is to counteract the steady flow of defectors by increasing their attention on the young ones who are already associated.

Still about numbers though.

4 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

He repetedly lies about disassociation being  an action an individual takes or that it is their choice to go through this process

Actually, this is perfectly true, disassociation is an action that an individual takes to leave an organization.

13 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

That's not how cults thrive, they thrive by convincing their members that they have a unique form of worship. 

We would have to define first what a Cult is, and how it operates, in order to have a conversation about this. But this would be off topic on this thread. I am sure there is a topic on this subject somewhere on this forum though.

16 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

witnesses love talking about the growth and how jehovah is "blessing the work"

Well duh!

2 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

Sorry, you guys are pretty reasonable as fare as admitting simple facts go. For some witnesses unless it showed them 10,000 pictures of young JW kids getting baptized then it doesn't happen and I'm a liar.

Well, there's at least one pre-teen that gets baptized at most conventions and assemblies, so it's nothing new, and visible to all.

Please if you can @Albert Michelson, limit the amount of images which say basically the same thing, as these tend to clog up the thread. Thanks

4 hours ago, Albert Michelson said:

 It's clear to me that Jehovah's Witnesses are desperately trying to bolster their numbers to counteract the flood of defectors.  It's also clear that their primary goal is to get children trapped in the religion as early as possible.  The sooner they can get them baptized the sooner they can start threatening them with family estrangement if they try and leave. And as I said before at the very least the society hopes that the threat of disfellowshipping will  keep those who do try to fade silent. 

I think your reasoning on this is wrong on several levels.  The JW religion is not about how many numbers it has. If that were the case, then we could more efficiently and easily bolster our numbers by doing what religions of Christendom have done; water down the scriptures and tell the people what they want to hear and what is comfortable for them. We could allow smoking, turn a blind eye to adultery, fornication and homosexuality, support patriotism, celebrate all the holidays and Birthdays, have blood transfusions......you get the drift. 

The objective of the JW organization is not about numbers but to keep it morally and spiritually clean. It's about quality not quantity. And as @JW Insider remarked on the other thread, which puts it in a nutshell "We are counting on Jehovah's spirit to help us find the ministry that feels the most like what we would expect if we saw the first-century Christians trying to fit into the twenty-first century"

 

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

A recent couple of discussions here have shown me that, for some, almost all semblance of Christianity goes out the window when something so basic to our comfort level is threatened. There are books that discuss this phenomenon from a psychological perspective, too, and I have been surprised and saddened to see the precise, predictable patterns emerge among us.

Isn't that the truth. Cognitive dissonance.

If anyone cares to address questions raised by Albert I created a topic for it here:

 

 

Jehovah doesn’t coerce anyone, neither do we as JWs coerce anyone to stay as JWS. We are free to leave at any time. In the end all will make an accounting to God individually. If someone comes to reject  some of the organization's teachings and cannot in good conscience continue to support a religion they have come to believe is false, they must in good conscience leave.  However, in doing so, they may have to sacrifice their relationship with their family as well (if they get disfellowshipped for it). This leaves the individual in a very difficult situation, to either stay in the faith hypocritically, in order not to lose their loved ones, or to sacrifice their relationship with loved ones in order to satisfy their conscience and be free of hypocrisy. Neither of these situations is ideal for the individual nor their loved ones.  Do the scriptures give a solution to this problem?

This hypothetical situation assumes the individual does not promote their opinion, nor do they cause any disruption in the congregation, it is merely their conscience that is at odds with them.

 

I have posted this issue before, but it was during the time of the hot topic of the persecution in Russia and maybe got overshadowed by it. A poster brought it up again in one of the threads so I thought I will try again to post it as a topic. My goal is not to sow doubts, nor to promote some false ideas, but rather to get to the bottom of this as I feel it is a valid question. The summary of the problem can be seen in the quotes below:

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.)

 

 

 

 

26 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

The organization knows that it's 1914 teaching and it's claim to be in God's representative's is  demonstrably false.

The above quote is the opinion of some. I do not believe all who are responsible ( GB) think that 1914 is false,  despite Franz's claims.

28 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

 I can't have an honest discussion with them because I know what the  consequences will be. But as I said before you seem to have no issue when it comes to forcing someone to basically take a vow of silence and never express their reasons for leaving. 

 

Sometimes we got to do what we got to do, either way.....

14 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

Not trying to insult you by using the word cult that's just how the meme was written 

OK.

Yes, I know that article, from the 2009 Awake and I have posted a topic on that for discussion, but I think it got buried under the avalanche of the persecution and ban in Russia that was happening at the time. Perhaps I will re-post it because I feel it is a valid point...

1 minute ago, Albert Michelson said:

Oh I forgot you're a witness so you see no problem in forcing someone into remaining silent about what they believe. 

Ok I'll rephrase so we're on the same page.  If you reject the organization's teachings and cannot in good conscience continue to support a religion you believe to be false and you thereafter explain to someone else why you were rejected that religion you can be punished .

 

Well, I think it would be better to leave before that happened

2 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

that jehovahs witnesses who cannot in good conscience teach what they personally believe to be false teachings are punished for acting in accord with their conscience.

Just depends how they go about it doesn't it?  If my conscience didn't allow me to teach something I wouldn't either. But that wouldn't get me disfellowshipped.

Just now, Albert Michelson said:

Yes I have many friends who have been disfellowshiped recently for rejecting this very teaching. 

Hmmm....I doubt that very much. Sounds more like the problem was what you cited in the Elders book. i.e. deliberately spreading teachings contrary to what  JWs teach.  

15 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

A result of honest hearted individuals who could no longer remain associated with a false religion.

That's a matter of opinion.

15 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

They're still punishing people who challenge this doctrine and it's for the very reason I stated above.

Can you prove that?

 

 

Yes, I have read most of Franz's book

I’d like to propose a new topic, approaching this 1914 issue from another angle:

“If the GB were to revise their understanding of 1914 (getting rid of it) propose how they would go about presenting this information without causing a big disruption and loss of faith, to those whose faith is dependent on 1914"

2 hours ago, Albert Michelson said:

"Approved association with Jehovah’s Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses. What do such beliefs include?

 

2 hours ago, Albert Michelson said:

That 1914 marked the end of the Gentile Times and the establishment of the Kingdom of God in the heavens, as well as the time for Christ’s foretold presence

Interesting. I was just now going to type up several reasons why salvation is not dependent on us believing in 1914. I have read this 1986 article before. But thank you for mentioning it, as a reminder on here.  Put in context of the time period this article was written, (post Bethel apostasy) it is understandable to a certain extent why it was written. It would be interesting to see if such a view was still strictly adhered to today, and put into the same words as is was back then. A lot of doctrinal water has gone under the bridge since then, and some beliefs had to be revised. (None that are mentioned above though). Because of that, it seems the GB is a lot more careful recently when it comes to insisting on certain past teachings. Knowledge and truth are progressive, that is why the article also mentions "Through Jesus Christ, Jehovah God provided for this purpose “some as apostles, . . . some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers . . . until we all attain to the oneness in the faith and in the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to a full-grown man.” Ephesians 4:11-13  Evidently we have not attained all the accurate knowledge yet. Perhaps not even the oneness in the faith as is also evident by the discussions on this forum....

 

2 hours ago, Albert Michelson said:

but that they have been teaching a false good news for the majority of their existence.

Not really, since the Good news is and has remained the same regardless of a date. The Good news is about the blessings for mankind brought through the Messianic kingdom, regardless of when established.