They would Stone us if the law would allow

by ElderEtta 51 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • ThomasCovenant

    Several MINUTES ago unless I was dreaming I read a watchtower quotation that effectively said that they would execute us as disfellowshipped individuals if the law would allow.

    Morpheus............... So, 1952 is your definition of “several MINUTES ago”?

  • The Fall Guy
    The Fall Guy

    Just a few years ago - in the 1990's - a pregnant teenage relative of mine (no parent present) was told in no uncertain terms by the elders that if she was living in the days of the Israelites she would be getting stoned to death! Scumbag snakes in the grass.

    w52 11/15 p. 703 Questions From Readers

    "We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization*, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel."

    So active JW's just have to make do with 2nd best option - cutting off all human contact with alleged loved one who even happen to question or challenge what the faithful slave master in New York State says or does.

    *The term "theocratic organization" appears in the same book of the Bible where hell fire, immortal soul, trinity, and governing body appear!
  • The Fall Guy
    The Fall Guy

    *** w52 11/15 pp. 703-704 Questions From Readers ***

    Questions From Readers

    ● In the case of where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship?—P. C., Ontario, Canada.

    We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine. “Thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from Jehovah thy God, . . . And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is in the midst of thee.”—Deut. 13:6-11, AS.

    Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship. However, God’s law requires us to recognize their being disfellowshiped from his congregation, and this despite the fact that the law of the land in which we live requires us under some natural obligation to live with and have dealings with such apostates under the same roof.

    God’s law does not allow a marriage partner to dismiss his mate because his mate becomes disfellowshiped or apostatizes. Neither will the law of the land in most cases allow a divorce to be granted on such grounds. The faithful believer and the apostate or disfellowshiped mate must legally continue to live together and render proper marriage dues one to the other. A father may not legally dismiss his minor child from his household because of apostasy or disfellowshiping, and a minor child or children may not abandon their father or their mother just because he becomes unfaithful to God and his theocratic organization. The parent must by laws of God and of man fulfill his parental obligations to the child or children as long as they are dependent minors, and the child or children must render filial submission to the parent as long as legally underage or as long as being without parental consent to depart from the home. Of course, if the children are of age, then there can be a departing and breaking of family ties in a physical way, because the spiritual ties have already snapped.

    If children are of age and continue to associate with a disfellowshiped parent because of receiving material support from him or her, then they must consider how far their spiritual interests are being endangered by continuing under this unequal arrangement, and whether they can arrange to support themselves, living apart from the fallen-away parent. Their continuing to receive material support should not make them compromise so as to ignore the disfellowshiped state of the parent. If, because of acting according to the disfellowship order of the company of God’s people, they become threatened with a withdrawal of the parental support, then they must be willing to take such consequences.

    Satan’s influence through the disfellowshiped member of the family will be to cause the other member or members of the family who are in the truth to join the disfellowshiped member in his course or in his position toward God’s organization. To do this would be disastrous, and so the faithful family member must recognize and conform to the disfellowship order. How would or could this be done while living under the same roof or in personal, physical contact daily with the disfellowshiped? In this way: By refusing to have religious relationship with the disfellowshiped.

    The marriage partner would render the marriage dues according to the law of the land and in due payment for all material benefits bestowed and accepted. But to have religious communion with the disfellowshiped person—no, there would be none of that! The faithful marriage partner would not discuss religion with the apostate or disfellowshiped and would not accompany that one to his (or her) place of religious association and participate in the meetings with that one. As Jesus said: “If he does not listen even to the congregation [which was obliged to disfellowship him], let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector [to Jehovah’s sanctified nation].” (Matt. 18:17, NW) Hurt to such one would not be authorized, but there would be no spiritual or religious fellowshiping.

    The same rule would apply to those who are in the relation of parent and child or of child and parent. What natural obligation falls upon them according to man’s law and God’s law the faithful parent or the faithful child will comply with. But as for rendering more than that and having religious fellowship with such one in violation of the congregation’s disfellowship order—no, none of that for the faithful one! If the faithful suffers in some material or other way for the faithful adherence to theocratic law, then he must accept this as suffering for righteousness’ sake.

    The purpose of observing the disfellowship order is to make the disfellowshiped one realize the error of his way and to shame him, if possible, so that he may be recovered, and also to safeguard your own salvation to life in the new world in vindication of God. (2 Thess. 3:14, 15; Titus 2:8) Because of being in close, indissoluble natural family ties and being of the same household under the one roof you may have to eat material food and live physically with that one at home, in which case 1 Corinthians 5:9-11 and 2 John 10 could not apply; but do not defeat the purpose of the congregation’s disfellowship order by eating spiritual or religious food with such one or receiving such one favorably in a religious way and bidding him farewell with a wish for his prosperity in his apostate course.

  • Half banana
    Half banana

    Thank you Fall Guy for that great dollop of Watchtower vomit!

    How clever and cunning the JW org is in convincing its flock to obey only those Biblical rules which favour the advancement, isolation and protection of their cult.

    Remember: Jehovah's Witnesses actually do destroy families, they say the Bible sanctions it.

    If anyone reading this is interested in joining the religion, please bear this in mind.

  • _Morpheus
    That snark was completely uncalled for. Besides, how would you define it? 'Several years ago' is far more accurate than 'a few years ago.' What, should she have said 'eons ago' instead?

    No, it was completely called for. 1952 was 65 years ago. Thats several overlapping generations. Only a complete moron would call that “several years ago” in any context other than geological. It was more than several decades. Its very literally a lifetime ago.

    If you want to hold it ahainst them, by all means. They said it. Just attribute it correctly... the problem is saying it was 65 years ago automatically makes it less relevant so you want to obscure the time line.


  • pale.emperor

    What I dont get is, why is it that when the GB bring out a "revised understanding" they're not called apostates by the 8 million members?

    If you're told something is "the truth" and even shown proof scripturally, then any change to that truth should be called apostasy right?

  • Still Totally ADD
    Still Totally ADD

    So all apostates need to be stone? Lite up the joints. Lol. Just like sex apostates are the wt number one enemy. Still Totally ADD

  • ThomasCovenant

    ''Only a complete moron'' would understand the OP to mean that the quote was from several years ago as opposed to 'I read it several years ago'.

  • amiable atheist
    amiable atheist

    1952 or whenever - In JW time reckoning it's been just before the last corner.

    Anyway, this appalling attitude of dehumanising people, even members of the own family, by disowning them and practically declaring them dead, simply for not subscribing anymore to every whim of 8 old farts in Warwick, has never been softened; on the contrary, the cruelty only has ever been notched up wreaking havoc on hundreds of thousands of peoples' lives.

  • Searril

    So, 1952 is your definition of “several years ago”?

    The poster didn't say 1952 was several years ago. Here's what the poster said:

    Several years ago unless I was dreaming I read a watchtower quotation

    The post was extremely clear that he/she read the quotation several years ago. So if you want to be a stickler, maybe start by stickling yourself.

    The thing is, I frequently agree with the content of some of your posts -- the ones that urge caution against reckless speculation and wild conjecture. But sometimes you can just be a flipping douche for no apparent reason against someone who did nothing to incur it. This is one of those times.

    You don't have to be a smartass all the time. It'll lose its potency if you are.

Share this