XQ:
Remember that dictionary you once asked if JW's have? - last time I checked mine, yes, you have the correct definition of illicit.
With all due respect tho - if I had to look up words with your spellings used, I wouldn't find many of them.
WTS letter to Newlywed (Explicit Content)
by 4JWY 62 Replies latest members adult
-
-
JeffT
Not sure how the Watchtower interprets it, but illicit is not necessarily illegal. My dictionary says illicity means illegal or forbidden. I think the Watchtower means the second, in that some things can be bac but aren't illegal. For example, having a mistress on the side is "illicit" (an in my case, as the wife knows how to load the shotgun, will get me killed) but it is not against the law.
-
4JWY
Jeff:
yes, mine reads: not sanctioned by custom or law; illegal; unlawful
ie: JW dictionary (almost spelled this wrong!) - not sanctioned by JW custom or JW law
-
XQsThaiPoes
I know I spell badly in a rush. Okay but adultery was Illegal just not anymore, so was sodomy. Now on forbidden then who forbids it? THe bible does not. 60% of americans don't think oral sex is sex so who is the vast majority? Look at this survey. The reason for not have oral sex if it is legal does not exist anymore. This is a weird side effect of JW legalism, and inoring the times we live in. I wish the watchtoer was stuck in the 1920's instead of the 1950's.
If the laws change the watchtower looses the support of law enforcement, since they don't cultivate a independant moral compass it is sorta of the watchtower shoting its self in the foot.
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/special_reports/sexsurvey.htm
***
w72 12/1 pp. 734-736 Questions from Readers ***Questions
from Readers?
Recently in the news was a court decision ruling that oral copulation by adults is no longer punishable by law in a certain state. Would such practice therefore be solely a matter for individual conscience if engaged in by a Christian couple within the marriage arrangement??U.S.A.It is not the purpose of this magazine to discuss all the intimate aspects of marital relations. Nonetheless, practices like those involved in this court case have become quite common and have received considerable publicity. Even young children in certain schools are being informed of these things in sex education courses. We would therefore be remiss as regards our responsibility if we held back Scriptural counsel that could aid sincere Christians in their efforts to follow a course of purity calling forth the Creator?s blessing. Unusual sexual practices were being carried on in the apostle Paul?s day and he did not remain silent about them, as can be seen in reading Romans 1:18-27. We are therefore only following his good example in considering this question here.
In discussing sexual practices, the apostle provides us a principle that helps us to reach a right conclusion. He refers to "the natural use of the female," which some were abandoning in favor of what is "contrary to nature," thus satisfying "disgraceful sexual appetites" and "working what is obscene." The apostle specifically deals with homosexual practices, condemning such. But the principle stated?that the satisfying of sexual desires can be "natural" or can be "contrary to nature"?applies just as well to the question under consideration.?See also Leviticus 18:22, 23.
The natural way for a married couple to have sexual relations is quite apparent from the very design given their respective organs by the Creator, and it should not be necessary to describe here how these organs complement each other in normal sexual copulation. We believe that, aside from those who have been indoctrinated with the view that ?in marriage anything goes,? the vast majority of persons would normally reject as repugnant the practice of oral copulation, as also anal copulation. If these forms of intercourse are not "contrary to nature," then what is? That those practicing such acts do so by mutual consent as married persons would not thereby make these acts natural or not "obscene." Are we being ?narrow? or ?extreme? in taking such position?
No, as seen by the fact that several states of the United States have for long had laws against precisely such practices, classifying them as forms of "sodomy"?even though those engaging in them are married. Because of this legal usage, Webster?s Third New International Dictionary includes in its definition of "sodomy" this: "carnal copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal or unnatural carnal copulation with a member of the opposite sex; specif: the penetration of the male organ into the mouth or anus of another." Of course, dictionaries and state laws differ but our position is based primarily upon God?s Word the Bible. Yet such worldly evidence serves a certain purpose, one corresponding in principle to what the apostle said at 1 Corinthians 5:1. There he showed that the sexual relations of one member in the Corinthian congregation were of a kind condemned even by people of the pagan nations. So, the application of the term "sodomy" in modern times to the mentioned forms of copulation shows that we are not unreasonable in saying they are not only "unnatural" but grossly so.
However, since marriage is of divine origin, our conscientious stand on marital relations is not founded on or ruled by worldly views. Therefore the overruling of some state law and the declaring of oral copulation (or similar unnatural copulation) as ?legal? does not alter our Bible-based position. In a world of decaying morals we can expect that some law courts may succumb in varying degrees to the growing trend toward sexual perversion, just as some of the clergy and doctors have done.
It is not our purpose to attempt to draw a precise line as to where what is "natural" ends and what is "unnatural" begins. But we believe that, by meditating on Bible principles, a Christian should at least be able to discern what is grossly unnatural. In other areas, the Christian?s individual conscience will have to guide, and this includes questions regarding caresses and ?love play? prior to intercourse. (Compare Proverbs 5:18, 19.) But even here the Christian who wants to produce the fruits of God?s holy spirit will wisely avoid practices that approach, or could easily lead one to fall into, unnatural forms of copulation.
What if certain married couples in the congregation in the past or even in recent times have engaged in practices such as those just described, not appreciating till now the gravity of the wrong? Then they can seek God?s forgiveness in prayer and prove their sincere repentance by desisting from such gross unnatural acts.
It is certainly not the responsibility of elders or any others in a Christian congregation to search into the private lives of married couples. Nevertheless, if future cases of gross unnatural conduct, such as the practice of oral or anal copulation, are brought to their attention, the elders should act to try to correct the situation before further harm results, as they would do with any other serious wrong. Their concern is, of course, to try to help those who go astray and are ?caught in the snare of the Devil.? (2 Tim. 2:26) But if persons willfully show disrespect for Jehovah God?s marital arrangements, then it becomes necessary to remove them from the congregation as dangerous "leaven" that could contaminate others.?1 Cor. 5:6, 11-13.
What of Christian women married to unbelievers and whose mates insist on their sharing in such grossly unnatural acts? Does the apostle?s statement that "the wife does not exercise authority over her own body, but her husband does" give a wife the basis for submitting to these demands? (1 Cor. 7:4) No, for such husbandly authority is only relative. God?s authority remains always supreme. (1 Cor. 11:3; Acts 5:29) The apostle, furthermore, was speaking of normal sexual relations, as the context indicates. True, refusal to engage in unholy acts may bring hardship or even persecution on a wife, but the situation is the same as if her husband demanded that she engage in some form of idolatry, in misuse of blood, dishonesty or other such wrong.
Millions of married couples throughout the earth, both in the past and in the present, have found that unselfish love brings joy and full satisfaction, for both partners, in marital relations, without resorting to perverted methods. Realizing that a corrupt world is soon to be wiped away, we can think on the words of the apostle Peter, who wrote: "Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, awaiting and keeping close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah." Yes, this is not the time to be slipping into, or letting others beguile or pressure us into, unholy practices just to satisfy selfish passion. Not if we truly cherish our hope of living in the fresh, clean new order now so near. (2 Pet. 3:11, 12; Jude 7) So, Christian married couples can keep ?the marriage bed without defilement,? not only by refraining from fornication and adultery, but also by avoiding defiling, unnatural practices.?Heb. 13:4.
***
w78 3/15 pp. 25-28 Incestuous Marriages?How Should Christians View Them? ***Incestuous
Marriages?How Should Christians View Them?A FEW years ago a court in a Scandinavian country decided that no action should be taken against a man who was living with his sister in marital relationship. A member of the country?s parliament said that he would advocate a change in the country?s incest laws so that such relationship would not be illegal. Similar cases could be cited in many lands.
What constitutes an incestuous marriage? What information does the Bible supply that can aid Christians in determining the view that they should take regarding these?
"Incest" refers to sexual connections between close relatives. The English word is drawn from the Latin term incestus. In Latin, however, incestus means simply "unchastity." So it is a much broader term than the English word derived from it. All incest is, of course, unchastity, but not all unchastity is incest. The specialized meaning given to the English word is due to the appearance of incestus in the Latin Vulgate?s rendering of Leviticus 18:17, where sexual connections within certain family relationships are described. Catholic translations in English used the word in Anglicized form and, in time, it came to have its limited sense of sexual relations or marriage between close relatives.
The important point for those who respect God?s Word, however, is not the Latin or English term used, but what the Scriptures say about the relationship itself. For one thing, the Law covenant given to the nation of Israel did prohibit certain marital relationships between relatives. (Lev. 18:7-18; 20:14, 19-21; Deut. 27:23) For Christians, a vital factor is the desire to maintain marriage in honor and to avoid bringing it into disrepute, taking into consideration the conscience of others, both inside and outside the Christian congregation.?Heb. 13:4; 1 Cor. 10:32, 33; 2 Cor. 4:2.
The Law covenant?s prohibition of certain marital relationships among close relatives certainly provides a guiding principle. But the fact remains that Christians are not under that Law given to fleshly Israel. Hence, the Christian congregation is not authorized to try to enforce that Law by insisting on adherence to its code through the avoidance of each and every prohibited marital relationship it lists.?Acts 15:10, 11; Rom. 6:14; Gal. 2:21.
It may be noted that certain features of the prohibitions seem designed to conserve the order of inheritance rights among the Israelites. Actual proximity of blood relationships or of family closeness due to marriage does not alone seem to have determined the morality or immorality of the relationship. Thus, a nephew could not marry his aunt but there was no prohibition against an uncle marrying his niece. (Lev. 18:12-14) Obviously, the proximity of blood relationship (or, if aunts and uncles through marriage are involved, the proximity of family relationship) was no greater or less in either case. Yet one was allowable and the other was not.
A man could not marry his brother?s widow, something that today, in many lands, would not be viewed as incestuous. And yet, it may be noted that, under the Law covenant, where a man died without having fathered an heir, his brother was called upon by the Law to take the widow as his wife so as to produce an heir in his brother?s name. This shows that such relationship was not deemed intrinsically or inherently bad or immoral.?Lev. 18:16; Deut. 25:5, 6.
Marriage by first cousins, where blood ties are quite close, was not prohibited. Marriage to a half sister was prohibited, but no prohibition is stated against a son marrying a stepdaughter of his father, that is, an adoptive daughter, not the offspring of the son?s parents.?Lev. 18:11.
IMPORTANT
FACTORS FOR CHRISTIANSThe fact that Christians are not under the Law covenant certainly does not mean that any marriage between fleshly relatives, no matter how close, is acceptable to Christians. It is noteworthy that, in discussing incest, the Encyclopædia Britannica (Micropædia, Vol. V, p. 323) refers to marriage between parents and children and between brothers and sisters and states that "incest is universally condemned and usually greeted with horror." In another article (Macropædia, Vol. 10, p. 479) it says: "The nearest approach to a universal rule found in all known human cultures is the incest taboo?the prohibition of sexual intercourse between a man and his mother, sister, daughter, or other specified kin." It speaks (p. 480) of the "basic triad" of mother, sister, daughter found in such incest prohibitions.
Turning to the inspired Christian Greek Scriptures, it seems obvious that when the apostle Paul wrote to Timothy that he should deal with "older women as mothers, younger women as sisters with all chasteness," his injunction drew its force from the fact that sexual relations with one?s mother or fleshly sister were viewed as totally unacceptable, fundamentally immoral. (1 Tim. 5:2) And, since such sexual connections, as we have seen, are viewed with disgust in almost all areas, it is obvious that such a relationship could not fulfill the Bible?s injunction, "let marriage be honorable among all."?Heb. 13:4.
While the likelihood of its happening is doubtless very remote, there can be no question that anyone entering into a parent-child or a brother-sister union would be viewed as definitely unacceptable in the Christian congregation of Jehovah?s Witnesses and, hence, unacceptable for baptism unless the union would first be dissolved. Anyone who was a baptized member of the congregation and who entered into such union would rightly be disfellowshiped from the congregation and reinstatement therein could come only by a dissolution of the union.
RELATIONSHIPS
OUTSIDE THE IMMEDIATE FAMILYWhat of cases outside the immediate family? In view of the Law covenant not being in force toward Christians, there does not seem to be sufficient Scriptural basis for taking a rigid position here, although the closer to such intimate blood relationship the marriage comes the more the congregation should make clear its viewing the union as undesirable. Here the Scriptural principle of love enters strongly, since it is known that the closer the blood relationship the greater the likelihood of genetic defects in any offspring resulting. (Rom. 13:8-10) It is a fact, too, that in a community generally "the horror at incest declines with the distance of the blood relative." (Encyclopædia Britannica, Micropædia, Vol. V, p. 323) So, even though some union between relatives outside the immediate family might not call for expulsion, the congregational elders could certainly take into account the degree of proximity in the relationship of those in such union, as also what effect this has on the congregation and the community, and then let this guide them as to using such ones in any exemplary way in the congregation.
Kinship may not be through blood relationship but through marriage (affinity). A Christian properly seeks to avoid that which would stir up public prejudice due to a violation of strongly held standards in this aspect of the matter. So, whereas, when relatives not related by blood marry, the danger of genetic hazards does not come into the picture, the closeness of their kinship can still affect the honorableness of their marriage in the eyes of the community. As has been shown, this should be of serious concern to the Christian. (Heb. 13:4) Like the apostle, we should want to "keep from becoming causes for stumbling" to those around us.?1 Cor. 10:32, 33.
In this connection, what of the case described at 1 Corinthians 5:1? Here the apostle describes an immoral relationship between a man and his father?s wife, evidently the man?s stepmother. The account does not say that any marriage was involved and, in fact, the apostle calls it "fornication" (porneia). The account does not say that the man?s father was still alive, although the words at 2 Corinthians 7:12, if applying to this same case, would indicate that he was. It therefore seems that it was not a case of marriage but of the man?s living immorally with his stepmother. But, even though the question of marriage may not be involved, Paul?s reference to this as a case of fornication such as "is not even among the nations" clearly shows that the family relationship existing made the fornication especially scandalous.?1 Cor. 5:1.
MAINTAINING DUE BALANCE IN OUR VIEWPOINTIt is not, of course, the duty of the Christian congregation to insist on total conformity to all the differing worldly standards regarding incest, nor to act as enforcers of Caesar?s laws prohibiting certain marriages (some of which laws go beyond even what the Law covenant prohibited). Human laws and their definitions of "incest" are not consistent but show wide variations. In some societies, a man who marries within his clan or village or, in some cases, even within his tribe may be viewed as incestuous. In other societies, nearly the reverse is true and a person is condemned if he does not marry within his tribe or clan. (Hastings? Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. IV, p. 253) In some Oriental societies, it is viewed as improper for persons having the same family name to marry, no matter how distant their kinship may be. (Encyclopædia Britannica, Macropædia, Vol. 5, p. 32) In some countries or states, marriage of first cousins can gain legal recognition, in others it cannot.
Though not providing the standard for morality such as governs one?s acceptance into the Christian congregation or expulsion therefrom, these factors could affect one?s being used in an exemplary way in the congregation. Much would depend on the gravity with which the surrounding community would view a union of certain relatives, whether it is a cause of great scandal or is simply a matter of some occasional or scattered unfavorable comment.?1 Tim. 3:7, 10.
Where persons have entered such a union previous to baptism, and the union does not involve immediate family relationship and perhaps already has resulted in offspring, then it would seem that the principle stated at 1 Corinthians 7:24 might be extended to such situations. In some cases the union may not be such as is accorded legal recognition in the area. If the parties involved can go to some place where such is obtainable, this would be beneficial in that it may contribute a degree of honorableness to the union in the eyes of others. If not, and the parties desire to be baptized and otherwise qualify, the opportunity could be extended to them to sign a declaration pledging faithfulness to their existing union. This would be viewed as an expression of their own acceptance of their union as binding rather than implying that the congregation favors the union.
Surely those who are deeply concerned with having and retaining God?s favor and blessing will guard against doing anything that would reflect unfavorably on his Name and Word. Though freed from subjection to the Law covenant given to the Israelites, as true Christians they will give earnest heed to the inspired words of the apostle: "Do not use this freedom as an inducement for the flesh, but through love slave for one another."?Gal. 5:13.
[Footnotes]The Hebrew word so translated is the word zimmah. Strong defines it as meaning "a plan, espec. a bad one." Keil-Delitzsch says: "lit. invention, design." The Septuagint used the Greek asebyma for it and Liddell-Scott says this word means "impious or profane act, sacrilege." In the New World Translation it is rendered "loose conduct."
Note that the listing in the book Aid to Bible Understanding, page 1041, erroneously lists such marriage as prohibited. The text (Leviticus 18:11) actually specifies that the daughter is the "offspring of your father," hence not adoptive. The chart in the February 1, 1975, Watchtower, page 73, correctly omits any prohibition of marriage with one?s stepsister.
-
4JWY
They sure wow me with more verbiage!
def: verbiage: Words in excess of those needed for clarity or precision; wordiness
-
freegirl20
What a load of crap!!! If the Bible doesn't mention specifics about how married couples should conduct themselves in the privacy of their bedrooms, what gives the WTS the right to dictate what is "right" or "wrong" conduct? Nowhere in the Bible does it say that performing oral sex on a spouse is forbidden! They have taken those scriptures out of context, because Paul was refering to fornicators and homosexuals, not married couples!
Also, 1 Cor. 7:5 says "do not deprive each other exept by mutual consent for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self control."
This is talking about satisfying each others sexual needs so that you won't be tempted to stray. In verse 9, it says," But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."
Marriage was designed so that we would be able to satisfy our sexual needs. This is just another means of the WTS to control peoples lives!
-
candidlynuts
i was married in the early 80s..
sex was fun and playful , one talk we both laughed so hard during the talk we got up and went home and had sex..the talk mentioned that demons couldnt take the form of man anymore and have sex so they got off on jehovahs people doing " unatural" things in the bedroom............... there musta been some happy happy demons cuz we had fun in the "marital bed".
-
undercover
I missed this thread back when it aired originally. I'm glad it got resurrected. It'd be great if this letter could be scanned (with personal info blacked out) and posted on the reexamine.org website.
-
love2Bworldly
Thanks to the posters that brought back this old thread, as it was before my time on here. Some posters have the greatest sense of humor!
I printed out the Watchtower article to share with my co-worker, she loves to laugh at the stupidity of the JDubdom.
My question is, how come it is sooooo wrong for a husband and wife to do what they want in the bedroom but WBTS does not feel it is soooooo wrong for pedophiles to live freely among them???? They are just plain evil.
-
BizzyBee
Darling, can we say a prayer before and after we do it?
Believe it or not, I actually knew of a couple who claimed to do this. ( I threw up a little in my mouth.)