Court case Jehovah's Witnesses Norway kicked off

by AndersonsInfo 57 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  gavindlt

  The ruling body of the Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide is the Supreme Council. It consists of nine members. At the end of last year, one of its members, Anthony Morris, published a video in which he condemned the ruling of the State Administrator in Norway and said that the community would not budge on its exclusion practice. "In the future, various governments will challenge our freedom to worship. They may try and pressure us to change our view of Scripture. But we certainly won't do that", he said in the video message.

  In addition, he announced the opening of a new office in Europe that is meant to "defend the right to practice the faith."

  However, in January, Morris resigned as a member of the Supreme Council. The Jehovah's Witnesses have not made the reason for this public.

  I wonder if Toni was sacrificed because his statement was too inflammatory and so now the argument could be made that his hard line sentiments are not what JW’s stand for.
• 

  Listener

  Good point gavindlt. Your post belongs on this thread also

  https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5068920948523008/breaking-news-anthony-morris-iii-no-longer-serving-on-governing-body

  They will make every effort to wiggle out of the evilness of their shunning policy. We even saw that in the Australian Royal Commission. They put the blame on the individual, saying it was their choice and basically their fault for not simply fading.
• 

  Fisherman

  The religious community shuns members when they leave the group

  So do Family Courts with orders of protection and jail.

  While the government may guarantee free morality and pursuit of happiness that is not the belief and practice of a religious community who may wants a family member to stop or change a moral path allowed by the government. Not being a JW a father may not want a son to use druxs or live a amoral lifestyle. The gov protects a person’s right to be free but a parent wants his son to be happy and to be healthy and to prosper. He won’t tolerate conduct that he believes is devastating to his child. The group lives by a moral code and allowing conduct outside the morality harms the offender and the group. The group should not be forced by the gov to tolerate conduct outside beliefs and practices of the group. Free to live however you like but it offends and hurts the group and the father wants the son to live a different life.
• 

  Hopeless1

  Is it totally inconceivable, to a Jehovah’s Witnesses that is, - that anyone, absolutely

  anyone, could ever be a

  - happy, - morally upright, - well-adjusted, - honest-hearted, - caring,

  - intelligent, - mentally healthy, - emotionally healthy, - hard working, - responsible,

  - decent, - law abiding, - useful member of the human race,

  unless, - unless, they are also a Jehovah’s Witness?

  Is it also inconceivable to any or all Jehovah’s Witnesses that any moral decency or any desirable human trait exists outside of the organisation calling itself Jehovah’s Witnesses?

  I could go on but further words fail me presently.
• 

  Fisherman

  unless, - unless, they are also a Jehovah’s Witness?

  You miss the whole point. You want to force JW because that’s what you like or you want to abolish family Courts and force family members to like each other and talk to each other when you like it because you like it?
• 

  Hopeless1

  No, Fisherman,

  you miss the point…….

  I ask the question,

  “Is it possible to be a decent person without having to comply with the dogma of Jehovah’s Witnesses?”

  you imply, however, that I want to force family members to like each other? - and to talk to each other?

  Force, - force family members to actually like each other, - talk to each other,??

  Are we not talking about minors here?

  Just what are you getting at?

  I believe parents should love their children, like them, even if they have developing viewpoints they may not like. Children often experiment with alternate points of view, only to discard them later?

  By the way, should not the prodigal son now be depicted as a minor, not as a young man? (According to JWs at least?)

  (Apologies to everyone if I got off topic)

  ( no offence meant by using bold lettering, just trying to emphasise that particular word)
• 

  markweatherill

  Let us strive for intellectual honesty.

  Nobody here wants to remove the choice of family members to like each other or not, or to talk to each other or not. I am not sure it's credible to pretend to misunderstand that.

  The 'whole point' is that watchtower does remove that choice, it mandates disfellowshipping and shunning for infractions both major and minor (such as exercising religious freedom), even arbitrary reasons, and keeps the reasons secret, and it does it to minors.

  Comparing a kangaroo court with a Family Court of the real world is not sensible.
• 

  resolute Bandicoot

  Dear Fisherman, please let me tell you a little about my personal experience... Having jumped ship 3 years ago, I am shocked at how well adjusted and kind most outsiders are (not all!). It seems to me that there is a higher concentration of weirdos, nutters, and self exultant turds inside the org. I dare you to make friends with a few "worldly people", you will quickly see that we live in a bland and navel gazing mono-culture.
  

  RB
  
• 

  Fisherman

  possible to be a decent person without having to comply with the dogma of Jehovah’s Witnesses?”

  Believe and practice what you like. That ain’t the issue here. If you can’t see that have a nice day.
  
  
• 

  Fisherman

  Comparing a kangaroo court with a Family Court of the real world is not sensible

  If you aren’t able to comprehend that the comparison is not to method of adjudicating but to jail and orders of protection to DF separates family members, have a nice day to you. You seem to like Family Court but you don’t like JW religious process of sin. Up to you.