by V 62 Replies latest members adult
Is it just me though... dont we remember a time when oral sex was banned for even married couples, it was one of the points that stuck with me from Crisis of Conscience, that couples who came forward and confessed were disfellowshipped!
Now it seems they are saying it's OK within marraige, I haven't seen this in print before.
I actually knew a couple who had been married 15 years and never done it because they felt it was wrong... incredible.
Poppy
Porneia involves the grossly immoral use of the genital organ(s) of at least one human (whether in a natural or a perverted way); also, there must have been another party to the immorality—a human of either sex, or a beast. ...
What, though, if one mate wants or even demands to share with his or her partner in what is clearly a perverted sex practice? The above-presented facts show that porneia involves unlawful sexual conduct outside the marital arrangement. Thus, a mate’s enforcing perverted acts, such as oral or anal sex, within the marriage would not constitute a Scriptural basis for a divorce that would free either for remarriage. ...
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 from the congregation. -WT 1983 3/15 p. 30-1
If you are married and oral sexing then you better not tell anyone. You will lose privileges, be removed as an elder or pioneer. If you insist on oral sex and advertise that, you could even be disfellowshipped.
Just a question,
What married couple do you know that discuss what they do in the bedroom? Anyone?
r.
Edited to add: Discuss what they do in the bedroom to the general public! I can't imagine!
Paragraph 11 is disturbing:
11) Lois reflects on the serious Bible command, `Get out of Babylon the Great,' the world empire of false religion. (Revelation 18:2, 4) She once belonged to the church where the wedding is to take place and knows that during the ceremony all present will be asked to share in religious acts, such as prayer, singing, or religious gestures. She is determined to have no part in that and does not want even to be there and be under pressure to break her integrity. Lois respects her husband and wants to cooperate with him, her Scriptural head; yet, she does not want to compromise her Scriptural principles. (Acts 5:29) Hence, she tactfully explains to her mate that even if he chooses to be there, she personally cannot. She may mention that if she attended and refused to share in some act, it might cause him embarrassment, so in that sense her not attending might be best for him. Her decision leaves her with a clear conscience.
The Society is trying to butt into personal decisions even when one mate isn't a JW. Since there is not a "three-fold cord" in this situation (between man, wife and the organization Jehovah) , they emphasize here that loyalty to Jehovah/the organization is paramount and the non-believing mate should probably be isolated.
The WTS keeps trying to break up families by alienating non-believing mates. Screw 'em.
Happily, in the same congregations, there likely are many who have deep knowledge, experience in applying Bible principles, and a conscience very much in harmony with God's thinking.
And the individuals here described will be marginalized by other congregation members (especially Elders and Pioneers) as "weak, unsteady, fringe" believers -- and/or as "proud, haughty, arrogant, independent-minded trouble-makers."
If I read this article in pre-study and I had children there is NO way I would be attending the meeting that day. It's disgusting that children at the hall have to sit through that. I can't believe that when I was younger I used to think such material is important. It really isn't. Ugh.
JW foreplay: "Brace yourself, love, and lie back and think of paradise."
Well. What can I say. Has the Watchtower society bugged my bedroom? This article is going to come down mightily hard on the UBM's.
It's bad enough that the society emasculates it's men. Now if his passion wilts under the baleful glare of the society, the woman is left bereft?
AND, that thing about "abstaining" from weddings and funerals. The Witness might as well put a sign around his neck, "Completely lacking in natural affection. Stay away."
Forgive me, moderators, but here is the view from the men who control Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide:
We don't care when Frederick McLean fxxxs children, we just move him around.
But don't you dare give oral sex to your mate.
[jgnat: Hey, if it's premeditated, am I required to forgive? Next time, save me the effort and put in the red xxx's yourself.]
Here's a little trivia some my find interesting. I think generally the WTS comes off as overly prudish when it comes to oral sex or sodomy, but I don't believe that's the case, of if it is, it is qualified and fairly recent. Because in 1956 such things as homosexuality and even bestiality were not grounds for divorce. Only adultery between man and woman!
20
Sodomy (or the unnatural intercourse of one male with another male as with a female), Lesbianism (or the homosexual relations between women), and bestiality (or the unnatural sexual relations by man or woman with an animal) are not Scriptural grounds for divorce. They are filthy, they are unclean, and God’s law to Israel condemned to death those committing such misdeeds, thus drastically putting these out of God’s congregation. But such acts are not adultery with the opposite sex, making the unclean person one flesh with another of the opposite sex. (Rom. 1:26-32) Yet there is a penalty of disfellowshiping attached to them. They will keep a Christian out of the heavenly kingdom and out of God’s new world, and that means being destroyed like beasts from all future life. "The minding of the flesh means death," it "means enmity with God, for it is not under subjection to the law of God, nor, in fact, can it be. So those who are in harmony with the flesh cannot please God." They cannot gain the prize of everlasting life from him. (Rom. 8:6-8; 1 Cor. 6:9, 10; Gal. 5:19-21) Such filthy things by a mate may make life unbearable for the clean married person and are grounds for separation only, though some courts grant a divorce on such grounds. Such separation does not free one to remarry and enter thus into adultery. Writes Paul: "To the married people I give instructions, yet not I but the Lord, that a wife should not depart from her husband; but if she should actually depart, let her remain single or else make up again with her husband; and a husband should not leave his wife." (1 Cor. 7:10, 11, NW) Only if one of the separated couple committed adultery under the stress of the separation would there be Scriptural basis for the innocent to procure a divorce and be free to remarry. ("Watchtower" 1956, page 591)
Now, while it is clear there was a disdain for bestiality and homosexuality since those acts were not sufficient grounds for divorce, it suggests that intercourse between a man and a woman not their married partner is even worse, since it didn't qualify for divorce. This was not changed until 1982 when there was a broadened definition for "porneia" that then included homosexuality and bestiality.
Still there is the legal concept of what is ADULTERY. Did President Clinton actually commit adultery by giving the president a personal bacterial wash of his genitalia (saliva is antibacterial, you know...)?
Now there's the issue of adultery being comitted in the case of anal intercourse. I can see that if it was with another man (i.e. a married man sodomizes a male), but it doesn't seem as clear-cut if it was with a woman.
Of course things really get complicated with homosexual "adultery" involving lesbianism. How far do two women have to go before the male husband of either of them considers "adultery" has been committed?
I know personally of a case where the wife of an oversexed elder had fondled and fooled around with several in the congregation including some Bible studies (all other women). The elder was disfellowshipped for "loose conduct," of course, but there was no actual adultery, so the brothers told the sister she couldn't get a divorce. She totally ignored the elders and filed for a divorce anyway, claiming he committed "psychological adultery." He later married out of the truth and she was then legally free to marry as well.
So what is technical "adultery" versus technical "unfaithfulness" sometimes comes into play.
JCanon
Thanks, Brother Richie.
