Branch Correspondence Guidelines (page 4)

janusfulcrum

I love how "personal decisions" never really are without judgements as to how "spiritual" one is as measured by one's obedience to the word as interpreted by the GB. For instance, the WT 02 article referenced states that physical exercise is a personal choice, but in no uncertain terms labels anyone who chose do yoga as unspiritual.

Oubliette

Wow, this is very interesting!

ToesUp

"Child that results either from fornication or from rape of a minor girl: The father of the single, minor girl (or the mother in a single parent home where there is no father) bears the responsibility to decide whether the infant will be raised in the home or elsewhere. It shows consideration on his part to consider the minor’s valid wishes. He must also decide whether to permit the girl to marry the male who caused the pregnancy."

So a child coming into the world via rape is the same as fornication? WTF?

Hello...Watchtower! Rape is a violent crime! It looks like they view rape the same way they view child molestation, as a sin, not a crime. So screwed up!

EdenOne

I have found something in these guidelines that I wasn't aware of. Is this new? It concerns when, at the time of a delivery, a choice must be made between the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child.

On page 77, when discussing the topic of "Abortion", it reads:

"If at the time of delivery a choice must be made between the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child, it is up to the individuals concerned to make that choice, although there are considerations that favor the mother's life. (rs26; w69 12/15 768, ftn)"

I wasn't aware of this stance before. How many JW mothers have died in the course of a delivery because they refused to let go of the unborn child because it was an unacceptable abortion?

Eden

Vidiot

ToesUp - "...It's all in who you are and who you know ..."

Also, where you are, and how much it'll cost the Org.

Vidiot

Warwickslave - "You could celebrate your Birthday and not get disfellowship. nice."

Hmph.

Something like that would probably just get added to the ever-increasing list of things that you automatically "disassociate" yourself just by doing (like accepting a transfusion, celebrating Christmas, or "whistleblowing").

XBEHERE

There we have it, its a rule but not made public

Christians should always
have a hatred for all perverted practices
—homosexuality, lesbianism, bestiality,
oral or anal sex, and the like. (Lev. 15:24;
20:18; Ps. 97:10; Amos 5:15; Rom. 12:9;
Eph. 5:3, 10-12; Col. 3:5, 6) Married couples
can be urged to act in a way that
leaves them with a clean conscience and
that reflects their desire to see the marriage
bed kept honorable and without
defilement.—Heb. 13:4;

Even the Elders manual does not say this. Wow.

never a jw

Page 7: Don't answer challenges to your religion and beliefs, just run. Send an elder to check the motives of the challenger.

Who would want to belong to a cause that is indefensible?

Simon

Even the Elders manual does not say this. Wow.

I think that's all been in Watchtowers over the years (to varying degrees of 'conscience' vs 'rule')

EdenOne

Here's the current stance of the organization regarding oral and anal sex between married couples:

Page 98: "When questions arise as to the propriety of certain conduct between husband and wife, it is good to indicate that it is not for the Christian congregation to direct individuals about what may or may not be done in the marriage bed. (...) Married Christians are included in the admonition to to avoid "covetous sexual apetite" (1 Thess. 4:4-8) This involves showing proper restraint even during sexual relations, not resorting to unclean acts. Christians should have a hatred for all perverted practices - homosexuality, lesbianism, bestiality, oral and anal sex, and the like. (Lev. 15:24; 20:18; Ps 97:10; Amos 5:15; Ro 12:9; Eph. 5:3, 10-12; Col. 3:5,6)"

So, the GB makes no qualms about how "wrong" it is for married couples to engage in oral or anal sex. They compound these with other practices that cannot possibly take place in a JW marriage, such as Homosexuality Lesbianism and Bestiality, and declare them all equally deserving of "hatred". It is a blatant contradiction: It begins by saying that it's not the congregation's business to tell JWs what to do or not do in bed - but immediately after tells them that they shouldn't do oral and anal sex. How's that for double speak? On the other hand, it's curious that no penalty is outlined for those who ignore the GB and engage in these sexual acts within their marriage.

Edit: Oops XBEHERE you beat me to it.

Edit 2: This document is from 2007. It's 8 years old.

Eden

Branch Correspondence Guidelines

Share this