July 15 2006 WT - Uncleanness - disfellowshp?- details (page 4)

Lapuce

I am confused now, I though that they did not allow oral or anal sex at all, now they say only that its ok? They are refering to this as practices of outside the marrage.; I am french so I might have missed something???

sir82

This is almost a word-for-word rehash of one of the talks from last winter's elders school.

Notice they bring up viewing child pornography, but fail to mention those should be reported to the authorities. -silent

This is a HUGE point. Owning/viewing child pornography is a FELONY. Does the Society encourge elders who know of this to report it to the authorities? NO--just form a judicial committee.

Someone with a better lawyerly mind than me can probably determine just how much legal hot water the Society has gotten themselves into by PRINTING 20 MILLION COPIES of a directive that, at least indirectly, encourages elders to COVER OVER FELONIES.

FreeFromWTBS

and they let there children read this garbage. This is totally not appropriate for public consumptions. Christian are suppose to be like children discussing what is good and upbuilding not this garbage. Christians are also suppose to mind their own business and that means staying out of others peoples marriage beds. i have heard that Elders harass people who confess of sexual sin for every single details. Such perversion is disgusting

Narkissos

Lapuce,

Cf. Watchtower 3/15, 1983, p. 30f:

Married
Christians
How about sexual activity between married couples within the marriage bond? It is not for the elders to pry into the intimate lives of married Christians. However, the Bible certainly enters into their lives. Those who would "keep walking by spirit" should not ignore the Scriptural indications of God’s thinking. And they will do well to cultivate a hatred for everything that is unclean before Jehovah, including what are clearly perverted sexual practices. Married couples should act in a way that will leave them with a clean conscience, as they give unimpeded attention to developing "the fruitage of the spirit."—Galatians 5:16, 22, 23; Ephesians 5:3-5.
What, though, if one mate wants or even demands to share with his or her partner in what is clearly a perverted sex practice? The above-presented facts show that porneia involves unlawful sexual conduct outside the marital arrangement. Thus, a mate’s enforcing perverted acts, such as oral or anal sex, within the marriage would not constitute a Scriptural basis for a divorce that would free either for remarriage. Even though a believing mate is distressed by the situation, yet that one’s endeavor to hold to Scriptural principles will result in a blessing from Jehovah. In such cases it may be helpful for the couple to discuss the problem frankly, bearing in mind especially that sexual relations should be honorable, wholesome, an expression of tender love. This certainly should exclude anything that might distress or harm one’s mate.—Ephesians 5:28-30; 1 Peter 3:1, 7.
As already stated, it is not for elders to "police" the private marital matters of couples in the congregation. However, if it becomes known that a member of the congregation is practicing or openly advocating perverted sex relations within the marriage bond, that one certainly would not be irreprehensible, and so would not be acceptable for special privileges, such as serving as an elder, a ministerial servant or a pioneer. Such practice and advocacy could even lead to expulsion from the congregation. Why?
Galatians 5:19-21 lists many vices that are not classed as porneia, and which could lead to one’s being disqualified from God’s Kingdom. Among them are "uncleanness" (Greek, akatharsia, signifying filthiness, depravity, lewdness) and "loose conduct" (Greek, aselgeia, signifying licentiousness, wantonness, shameless conduct). Like porneia, these vices, when they become gross, can be grounds for disfellowshipping from the Christian congregation, but not for obtaining a Scriptural divorce. A person who brazenly advocates shocking and repulsive sexual activities would be guilty of loose conduct. Of course, a person with that attitude might even sink to committing porneia; then there would be a basis for a Scriptural divorce. How concerned all devoted Christians should be to avoid and war against all such "works of the flesh"!—Galatians 5:24, 25.

Iow, we don't want to hear about it.

LDH

Once, in mixed company, an elder's daughter (about 5 at the time) loudly pronounced that Daddy always spanks Mommy with the belt, cause she's bad too!

They turned beet red, because the little girl had told all of us young people about it.

It's a good thing there was only young horny pioneers around to hear this. We all (Dad and mom) got a good laugh out of it.

It seems like if another elder heard it, it could be grounds for disfellowshipping. After all,

sexual relations should be honorable, wholesome, an expression of tender love. This certainly should exclude anything that might distress or harm one’s mate.—Ephesians 5:28-30; 1 Peter 3:1, 7.

daniel-p

Oh man this is hilarious. I especially like the part about the pornography viewer "inviting others" to come over and view pornography with him.

metatron

You've gotta love the stupidity of Watchtower writing:

So, a person can be DF'd for viewing "Abhorrent or sexually degrading" porn, right?

So, in the Watchtower view , exactly what pornography do they think is non-abhorrent or non sexually degrading?

Idiots! ( doing my best Napolean Dynamite impression)

I see this article as a further expansion of Watchtower attempts at control since it gives written emphasis to viewing porn as

a df'ing offense. While this may not be new, strictly speaking, the emphasis and explicit discussion for publishers is.

metatron

Fleur

Notice they bring up viewing child pornography, but fail to mention those should be reported to the authorities. -silent

What about turning in actual child molesters and rapists???!!! They don't do that, no, cause of that pesky "two witnesses' thing. But if you have child porn but are repentent...then you can continue to have access to all the naive families in the congregation?

This group just gets more dispicable.

I wonder though, if someone is df'd for say, phone sex or child porn, does that mean their mate has 'grounds' now? (not that I'm putting them on the same level at all, just showing the ridiculous range of so called 'df'ing offenses) Doubtful, but I have to wonder.

I feel so sorry for the tormented people trying to actually live up to this crud.

essie

steve2

...repeatedly makes sexually explicit telephone calls to another person...

The article is so poorly written and raises more questions than answers. Forget the morality or otherwise of this unusual telephone behaviour: Its legal gravity depends on whether the caller's overtures are acceptable or reciprocated by the other person. Even one unwanted sexually explicit telephone call - let alone repeated calls - would be enough to justify criminal charges being laid against the caller.

I can only assume that the article is talking about mutually acceptable sexually explicit telephone sex?

looking_glass

This article also allows the elders to be justified in asking very specific questions about the "unclean acts" because they are able to say that it gives them the ability to understand the person's motive and whether they are sorry or not. When in truth, it just allows the old men to get off on hearing about the acts that are a no no by the religion.

I always thought that the reason JWs did not have kids was because they were told it was so close to the end and they should hold off. Now I think it is because they are terrified to have sex because they may be ratted out by their spouse because they were having sex in a position that is not allowed by the WTBTS.

July 15 2006 WT - Uncleanness - disfellowshp?- details

Share this