I have a question that I need your help with.

by Pallbearer 10 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Pallbearer

  Hi folks,

  I have a real serious question that I hope you will be able to help me with.

  In the 4-1-1986 Watchtower, pages 30-31 it talks about "approved association". What I'm seeking your opinion about is this: If a baptized JW is deemed to NOT be an 'approved associate' at some point (due to his having developed a divergent view regarding one or more of the Watchtower's unique teachings) does his 'not being an approved associate' mean that the Watchtower Society no longer considers him to be a JW? That's my question that I would like to find an answer to.

  To help you get a clear picture of what I'm dealing with I'll quote what that particular Watchtower said (emphasis added):

  Obviously, a basis for approved fellowship with Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot rest merely on a belief in God, in the Bible, in Jesus Christ, and so forth. The Roman Catholic pope, as well as the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, professes such beliefs, yet their church memberships are exclusive of each other. Likewise, simply professing to have such beliefs would not authorize one to be known as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

  Approved association with Jehovah's Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah's Witnesses. What do such beliefs include?

  That the great issue before humankind is the rightfulness of Jehovah’s sovereignty, which is why he has allowed wickedness so long. (Ezekiel 25:17) That Jesus Christ had a prehuman existence and is subordinate to his heavenly Father. (John 14:28) That there is a"faithful and discreet slave" upon earth today ‘entrusted with all of Jesus’ earthly interests,’ which slave is associated with the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses. (Matthew 24:45-47) That 1914 marked the end of the Gentile Times and the establishment of the Kingdom of God in the heavens, as well as the time for Christ’s foretold presence. (Luke 21:7-24; Revelation 11:15–12:10) That only 144,000 Christians will receive the heavenly reward. (Revelation 14:1, 3) That Armageddon, referring to the battle of the great day of God the Almighty, is near. (Revelation 16:14, 16; 19:11-21) That it will be followed by Christ’s Millennial Reign, which will restore an earth-wide paradise. That the first to enjoy it will be the present "great crowd" of Jesus’ "other sheep."—John 10:16; Revelation 7:9-17; 21:3, 4.

  Do we have Scriptural precedent for taking such a strict position? Indeed we do! Paul wrote about some in his day: "Their word will spread like gangrene. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of that number. These very men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred; and they are subverting [wrecking] the faith of some." (2 Timothy 2:17, 18; see also Matthew 18:6.) There is nothing to indicate that these men did not believe in God, in the Bible, in Jesus’ sacrifice. Yet, on this one basic point, what they were teaching as to the time of the resurrection, Paul rightly branded them as apostates, with whom faithful Christians would not fellowship.

  So what would you say? Is the person who has developed this divergent view merely considered to be a person that others in the congregation would be wise to not have close association with? Or, is the person just flat out not considered to be a JW any longer? Keep in mind that I'm describing a person who isn't trying to "wreck the faith" of others. He's a person who has been inactive for a long time, and he's content to keep his mouth shut, having no desire to cause anyone any trouble. The fact that he does have such divergent views has become known as a result of the elders inquiry as to why he has become inactive. Also, the person has made it quite clear to the elders that there is no chance that he will ever be convinced that his viewpoint is wrong. I might add that the person has never been disfellowshipped, nor has he ever disassociated himself, nor has he reneged on his baptismal vows. He's still just as serious as he was when he was first baptized. He's simply a person who has become irremovably convinced that certain teachings that he once thought were true are not actually true. So does the Watchtower Society view this person as still being a JW or not?

  I would appreciate your thoughtful consideration of the scenario as I have presented it.

  Thanks in advance for your opinions.
• 

  BluesBrother

  So what would you say? Is the person who has developed this divergent view merely considered to be a person that others in the congregation would be wise to not have close association with? Or, is the person just flat out not considered to be a JW any longer? Keep in mind that I'm describing a person who isn't trying to "wreck the faith" of others. He's a person who has been inactive for a long time, and he's content to keep his mouth shut, having no desire to cause anyone any trouble.

  Such a person may be d/f'd for apostasy....IF the cong elders decide to make a case out of it.

  In my case I had some discussions perhaps 10 years ago with the elders of the cong we were then attached to. They ignored my divergent views and allowed me to fade away. I have heard of many on this board who have been d/f'd for saying such things to elders. It is within their mandate to do so if they chose to.
• 

  alanv

  Some years ago the baptismal vows were changed. You now have to vow to abide by the rules of the society. So if you don't and they consider you could cause divisions, you will be booted out. For those who got baptised years ago it is not so easy for the elders to disfellowship for someone just not agreeing with everything that is said from the platform.
• 

  mouthy

  is not so easy For those who got baptised years ago it for the elders to disfellowship for someone just not agreeing with everything that is said from the platform

  I was baptised in the name of the Father Son,& Holy Spirit in the Organization(1963
  But they still kicked me out when I said I did not believe Jesus came in 1914.
  I dont know if many know the reason it was changed was a Brother sued them
  & won......So now you cannot sue ( some one did) & the Judge said ,you knew
  you had to adhere to the Organization rules when you were baptized INTO the
  ORGANIZATION>( new baptism sayings)So he banished the case
• 

  straightshooter

  Interesting thought I think that is in the Jan or Feb Watchtower 2010 Question from Readers on baptism. It stated that if a person was practicing a wrong before they were baptized and did not discontinue it during and after baptism, then their baptism is invalid. They cannot be df because of the continuing to pracitice a serious wrong before baptism. Of course apostasy would be a difficult point to slide by because of the questions the elders give before baptism.
• 

  Doubtfully Yours

  The Organization has changed, evolved, modernized (whatever you want to call it), leaps and bounds since 1986. Get your info from an article more like in the last 1 to 3 years.

  Any question, inquiry or comment that results of information from so long ago is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. Need to update!

  DY
• 

  bobld

  Yeah you get the shift,the R&F are brainwashed not to associate with you.The WBTS religion has unique beliefs as you stated "beliefs that are unique to J.W." that is why they have two WT'S one for the public and one for the members only because of their unique beliefs that the public does not understand.Why would the public when those things are not in the bible.

  Bob
• 

  VoidEater

  The question is on point since, unless Noo Lite specifically supersedes it, everything published in a Watchtower is considered doctrine.

  However, the question seems to boil down to, "Who does the WTS consider a witness?" - and that can be just an arbitrary choice, pressed by local elders or instigated by headquarters. In other words, no one here can determine who the WTS decides is or isn't a JW.

  Logic or consistency isn't a forte of the WTS, so any specific person can a) think differently, b) speak out, and/or c) not act right and be either considered a JW, or informally shunned, or considered to have DA'ed or be DF'ed.

  IMO, having a personal belief, never advertsied, that differs from WTS dogma shouldn't result in "marking" or DFing, but we know this sometimes isn't the case. Certainly if you speak your doubts out loud you are opening yourself to accusations of apostasy. Not engaging in the preaching work has had various results (my dad has successfully argued to his local elders that since he is not of the Anointed he us not under command to preach and therefore is still considered a JW by them).

  So what would you say?

  I would say that if you don't believe what the WTS teaches, you are not a JW. But you can probably fly below the radar if you neve give a hint that you don't believe. If you appear to be a JW to other JWs, you will continue to be considered a JW by them.

  If others suspect you have a divergent view, someone at some point may press the elders to deal with you. They may publicly reprove you if you are recalcitrant and don't convince them of your innocence, or if you admit you don't believe; they may go further and say you have DA'ed or they may DF you. Entirely depends on the elders, if the DO gets involved, if someone at WTS gets involved, how many "enemies" you have in the congregation that want to make your life miserable.

  I use "you" in the imprecise theoretical way in the following:

  Is the person who has developed this divergent view merely considered to be a person that others in the congregation would be wise to not have close association with?

  If no one knows you hold a divergent viewpoint, the question is moot. If it becomes known, it's more a political game with the local elders.

  Or, is the person just flat out not considered to be a JW any longer?

  The WTS would not consider such a person a JW. Clean and simple, the article says that flat out. And really, the article is telling you to believe "or else". You should not consider yourself a JW if you don't swallow it hook, line and sinker. AGain, whether anything happens in the real world depends on whether you admit it, and your local political landscape.

  The fact that he does have such divergent views has become known as a result of the elders inquiry as to why he has become inactive. Also, the person has made it quite clear to the elders that there is no chance that he will ever be convinced that his viewpoint is wrong.

  Since you admit to not believing everything, you can be reproved, DF'ed or told you have DA'ed yourself.

  So does the Watchtower Society view this person as still being a JW or not?

  The WTS would not view you as a JW. Whether they make that official is something else. It is sometimes easier to not press the issue, in the hopes you come around eventually, or if you have a degree of political power yourself, since it might upset others if they kick you out.
• 

  Pallbearer

  BluesBrother,

  It seems that you have correctly understood what I am really getting at, and your comment was:

  "Such a person may be d/f'd for apostasy....IF the cong elders decide to make a case out of it.

  In my case I had some discussions perhaps 10 years ago with the elders of the cong we were then attached to. They ignored my divergent views and allowed me to fade away. I have heard of many on this board who have been d/f'd for saying such things to elders. It is within their mandate to do so if they chose to."

  I had asked, "Does his 'not being an approved associate' mean that the Watchtower Society [itself] no longer considers him to be a JW?"

  So what I understand you to be saying is that the elders themselves don't know the answer to this very question. Apparently the Watchtower Society hasn't ever said whether such a person should be viewed as still being a JW or not. Well now that really helps a lot! I suppose the elders are supposed to just use their own imaginations, and do as they please.

  Thank you very much for your comments everyone. And if you have any additional thoughts please express them. BTW, where is Blondie at these days? I always look forward to what she has to say with regards to things like this.

  P.S. ~ For some reason my computer is really slow when I'm typing up comments on this forum. Is it just my old operating system (Windows 98) or does it have something to do with this website? Anyone else experiencing the same problem?
• 

  Pallbearer

  VoidEater,

  Thank you ever so much for your comments and especially your opinions.

  You said:

  -- I would say that if you don't believe what the WTS teaches, you are not a JW.

  -- The WTS would not consider such a person a JW. Clean and simple, the article says that flat out. And really, the article is telling you to believe "or else". You should not consider yourself a JW if you don't swallow it hook, line and sinker.

  -- The WTS would not view you as a JW. Whether they make that official is something else. It is sometimes easier to not press the issue, in the hopes you come around eventually, or if you have a degree of political power yourself, since it might upset others if they kick you out.

  That's what I was really driving at. Thanks again!