Watchtower Study for Sunday November 23

researcher

Was taken from the October 15, 2003 issue of the WT, and on page 16 #12, #13.......................What the H*ll was that talking about? To quote from #12 "Or the physical condition of one mate may at times make normal sexual relations difficult or even impossible.." Does that mean that one is too ugly...................too repulsive........................

What is meant by normal? Who decides Normal?

Is this a subtle through back to the Oral Issues? Do not they read their own publications? After disfellowshipping who knows how many the WT of 1978 offered a correcting view................... Yet,,,,,,,,,,,does not the Oct 15 WT try and get back into 'privatate bedroom activities'? So, my second question is ,,,,,,,,,,were those who were disfellowshippped to 'oral' reinstated with the explanation that OOPS we make a mistake????????????????

w78 2/15 pp. 30-31 Questions from Readers

Beyond these basic guidelines the Scriptures do not go and, hence, we cannot do more than counsel in harmony with what the Bible does say. In the past some comments have appeared in this magazine in connection with certain unusual sex practices, such as oral sex, within marriage and these were equated with gross sexual immorality. On this basis the conclusion was reached that those engaging in such sex practices were subject to disfellowshiping if unrepentant. The view was taken that it was within the authority of congregational elders to investigate and act in a judicial capacity regarding such practices in the conjugal relationship.

A careful further weighing of this matter, however, convinces us that, in view of the absence of clear Scriptural instruction, these are matters for which the married couple themselves must bear the responsibility before God and that these marital intimacies do not come within the province of the congregational elders to attempt to control nor to take disfellowshiping action with such matters as the sole basis. Of course, if any person chooses to approach an elder for counsel he or she may do so and the elder can consider Scriptural principles with such a one, acting as a shepherd but not attempting to, in effect, "police" the marital life of the one inquiring.

Interesting isn't it???????????? Or is is?

blondie

researcher, I did bring that point up in my review. Great minds, eh?

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/62316/1.ashx

Blondie

Elsewhere

What that is referring to is conditions such as erectile dysfunction... oral sex becomes an alternative to intercourse for satisfying one's mate.

archangel01

They all need to read "The Song Of Solomon'' just read between the linesIf your married I see nothing wrong with it.

Gadget

were those who were disfellowshippped to 'oral' reinstated with the explanation that OOPS we make a mistake????????????????

I wouldn't have thought so. Officially, you don't get df'd for what you have done, but for your attitude in respect to it and attitude to the counsel given to you about it. Even if they changed the rules, you would still have shown the 'wrong' attitude to the counsel from the wtbts and would still be df'd.

zen nudist