2. I believe there is also a group that leaves without having participated in any "immorality" because of doctrinal issues or they simply no longer believe, and cannot or will not remain in the org. for family or friends. I know this to be true because I am part of this group. For this group things may become complicated with regards to morality. If one has become convinced that the organization is not reality-based and may even feel the same about the Bible, perhaps even questioning the existence of God, morality becomes more difficult to define. In time, one may commit an act they would not have prior to coming to certain realizations. The org. loves to see this happen as it appears to bolster their view that everyone is a closet slime-ball saved only by association with them. It also appears to weaken the arguments of the "apostate" as it is suggested that the seeking of carnal pleasure was the "real" motive all along. But the real reason for the divergence from one's previous moral path is not that one set out to experience "forbidden fruit" but rather one now realizes that the "fruit" is not in fact "forbidden." The ex-believer now finds himself on a slippery slope. And that is what many now find themselves negotiating.
Boy, oh boy, nvrgnbk, there is bunch to chew on there. I am still chewing. I think you are dead on.
When one finds out the depth and breadth of the matter at hand, all the definitions, facts, and realities change. Thus, all those years as dubs, whilst we wondered out loud why so much of what we were taught as 'immoral', seemed to have gone on so freely among 'Jehovah's servants of old', could it have been that the NT morality [or the fundy and WTS definition of such] matched more closely the S&P view of such, than it ever did of God's view? And with the potential 'whitewashing' of the book as it has come down to us, along with the ultra-sensitive interpretations, intended to control, rather than honor God, it at times leaves more to question, than it answers, at least in my mind.
Jeff