Don't read the Bible!

[James]

...that is, if you are Catholic.


An excerpt from an address by the cardinals of the Roman Court to pope Julius III in 1550 immediately after his elevation to papacy. It is contained in a historical document of reformation times that is preserved today in the National Library of Paris in Folio B, No. 1088, Vol.2 pp.641-650:

"Of all advice that we can offer your holiness, we kept the most necessary to the last. We must open our eyes well and use all possible force in the matter, namely, to permit the reading of the Gospel as little as possible, especially in the vernacular, in all those countries under your jurisdiction. Let the very little part of the Gospel suffice that is usually read in the Mass and let no one be permitted to read more."
"So long as the people will be content with that small amount your interest will prosper, but as soon as the people want to read more, your interests will begin to fail. The Bible is the book, that more than any other, has raised against us the tumults and tempests by which we have almost perished."
"In fact, if anyone examines closely and compares the teachings of the Bible with what takes place in our churches he will soon find discord and will find that our teaching is often different from the Bible and oftener still, contrary to it. And, if the people wake up to this they will never stop challenging us till everything is laid bare and then we shall become object of universal scorn and hatred. Therefore, it is necessary to withdraw the Bible from the sight of the people, but with extreme caution in order not to cause a rebellion."

Printed from " Catholicism's fear of the Bible" in the Catholic Magazine, March 1944


agape,
James

[uglyandthin]

...that is, if you are Catholic.


An excerpt from an address by the cardinals of the Roman Court to pope Julius III in 1550 immediately after his elevation to papacy. It is contained in a historical document of reformation times that is preserved today in the National Library of Paris in Folio B, No. 1088, Vol.2 pp.641-650:

"Of all advice that we can offer your holiness, we kept the most necessary to the last. We must open our eyes well and use all possible force in the matter, namely, to permit the reading of the Gospel as little as possible, especially in the vernacular, in all those countries under your jurisdiction. Let the very little part of the Gospel suffice that is usually read in the Mass and let no one be permitted to read more."
"So long as the people will be content with that small amount your interest will prosper, but as soon as the people want to read more, your interests will begin to fail. The Bible is the book, that more than any other, has raised against us the tumults and tempests by which we have almost perished."
"In fact, if anyone examines closely and compares the teachings of the Bible with what takes place in our churches he will soon find discord and will find that our teaching is often different from the Bible and oftener still, contrary to it. And, if the people wake up to this they will never stop challenging us till everything is laid bare and then we shall become object of universal scorn and hatred. Therefore, it is necessary to withdraw the Bible from the sight of the people, but with extreme caution in order not to cause a rebellion."

Printed from " Catholicism's fear of the Bible" in the Catholic Magazine, March 1944


agape,
James

Hi James:

That is a great find! Yes, it would mean much trouble for the Catholic Church if thier people started to actually read God's Word for themselves. Jehovah's Witnesses understand a similar caution that has taken place since my introduction to the "truth" in 1976. Back then, and for a decade or so, it was not uncommon to get together in groups anywhere from 4 or 5 to as many as 20 to study the Watchtower together and discuss deeper Bible topics together.

However, the WTBTS does not want anyone in their fold to use their own reasoning on the scriptures and therefore they have since discouraged such activities amongst the brotherhood. I know this for sure, as I was once the company man's company man and did a little of this activity of discouragement myself, before I realized it was just too much control freakery. The only opinion that matters is the WTBTS's opinion and in regards to sexual matters, that opinion seems to change about every couple years or so. Now I have read in the pages of the Watchtower that it is possible to commit fornication with your own marriage mate and that that activity can be used as grounds for a scriptural divorce by the "innocent party". Unless they have been forced or coerced into such activity, how can they be the "innocent party"? Now that's sound reasoning for you! Sounds like they have thier head screwed on right, no pun intended. They didn't do enough damage to Christian marriages back in the 70' and 80's with thier constant lane changes on this very sensitive issue, now they are at it again. Like the personal experience I had with the first issue mentioned above, I have similar personal experience with this new improved policy on buggering into a husband and wifes sex lives. But I digress.

Yes, those Catholics sure are stupid to follow the lead of an obviously corrupt central body in the papacy. Yes sir indeed. We are so lucky to have the righteous leadership that we have today. So glad that we have Abraham as our Father! and the GB to do our thinking for us, yes siree, we are so lucky.

uglyandthin

[truthseeker]

Hi James:

That is a great find! Yes, it would mean much trouble for the Catholic Church if thier people started to actually read God's Word for themselves. Jehovah's Witnesses understand a similar caution that has taken place since my introduction to the "truth" in 1976. Back then, and for a decade or so, it was not uncommon to get together in groups anywhere from 4 or 5 to as many as 20 to study the Watchtower together and discuss deeper Bible topics together.

However, the WTBTS does not want anyone in their fold to use their own reasoning on the scriptures and therefore they have since discouraged such activities amongst the brotherhood. I know this for sure, as I was once the company man's company man and did a little of this activity of discouragement myself, before I realized it was just too much control freakery. The only opinion that matters is the WTBTS's opinion and in regards to sexual matters, that opinion seems to change about every couple years or so. Now I have read in the pages of the Watchtower that it is possible to commit fornication with your own marriage mate and that that activity can be used as grounds for a scriptural divorce by the "innocent party". Unless they have been forced or coerced into such activity, how can they be the "innocent party"? Now that's sound reasoning for you! Sounds like they have thier head screwed on right, no pun intended. They didn't do enough damage to Christian marriages back in the 70' and 80's with thier constant lane changes on this very sensitive issue, now they are at it again. Like the personal experience I had with the first issue mentioned above, I have similar personal experience with this new improved policy on buggering into a husband and wifes sex lives. But I digress.

Yes, those Catholics sure are stupid to follow the lead of an obviously corrupt central body in the papacy. Yes sir indeed. We are so lucky to have the righteous leadership that we have today. So glad that we have Abraham as our Father! and the GB to do our thinking for us, yes siree, we are so lucky.

uglyandthin

This is my research on the subject you bring up U&T

Does any one remember the Watchtower policy regarding sexual practices with in the marital arrangement starting in the early 70s?

This is an abstract from w74 11/15 pp. 703-704 Questions From readers ***

● Do lewd practices on the part of a married person toward that one’s own mate constitute a Scriptural basis for the offended mate to get a divorce?

There are times when lewd practices within the marriage arrangement would provide a basis for a Scriptural divorce. Of course, the Holy Scriptures do not encourage divorce nor do they command the innocent party to divorce a mate who engages in adultery or gross sexual perversion.
Regarding divorce, Jesus Christ stated: “Whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery.” (Matt. 19:9) “Everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of fornication, makes her a subject for adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”—Matt. 5:32.
Thus “fornication” is set forth as the only ground for divorce. In the common Greek in which Jesus’ words are recorded, the term “fornication” is por·nei′a, which designates all forms of immoral sexual relations, perversions and lewd practices such as might be carried on in a house of prostitution, including oral and anal copulation.
As to Jesus’ statements about divorce, they do not specify with whom the “fornication” or por·nei′a is practiced. They leave the matter open. That por·nei′a can rightly be considered as including perversions within the marriage arrangement is seen in that the man who forces his wife to have unnatural sex relations with him in effect “prostitutes” or “debauches” her. This makes him guilty of por·nei′a, for the related Greek verb por·neu′o means “to prostitute, debauch.”
Hence, circumstances could arise that would make lewd practices of a married person toward that one’s marriage mate a Scriptural basis for divorce. For example, a wife may do what she reasonably can to prevent her husband from forcing upon her perversions such as are carried on in a brothel. Yet, due to his greater strength, he might overpower her and use her for perverted sex. So as not to be prostituted in this way at another time, a Christian wife may decide to get a divorce. She could establish with the congregation that the real reason for this is por·nei′a and then proceed to get a legal divorce on any truthful grounds acceptable to the courts of the land.
If, on the other hand, the lewd practices were engaged in by mutual consent, neither mate would have a basis for claiming por·nei′a as a Scriptural ground for divorce. This is so because neither party is innocent and seeking freedom from a mate guilty of por·nei′a. Both marriage partners are guilty. Such a case, if brought to the attention of elders in the congregation, would be handled like any other serious wrongdoing.


Another Abstract from a - w78 2/15 pp. 30-32 Questions From Readers ***

● Does the Bible set forth any specific definitions as to what is moral or immoral as regards the sexual relationship between husband and wife? Is it the responsibility of congregational elders to endeavor to exercise control among congregation members in these intimate marital matters?
It must be acknowledged that the Bible does not give any specific rules or limitations as regards the manner in which husband and wife engage in sexual relations. There are brief descriptions of fitting love expressions, such as at Proverbs 5:15-20 and various verses in the Song of Solomon (1:13; 2:6; 7:6-8). These, and texts such as Job 31:9, 10, at least provide an indication of what was customary or normal as regards love play and sexual relations and coincide with what is generally viewed as customary and normal today.
The most forceful counsel in the Scriptures is that we should have complete love for God and love for our neighbor as ourselves; a husband is to love his wife as he does his own body and to cherish her and assign her honor. (Matt. 22:37-40; Eph. 5:25-31; 1 Pet. 3:7) As the apostle states, love “does not behave indecently, does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked.” (1 Cor. 13:4, 5) This would certainly preclude the forcing upon one’s marriage mate unusual practices that the mate considers distasteful or even repugnant and perverted.
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.
This should not be taken as a condoning of all the various sexual practices that people engage in, for that is by no means the case. It simply expresses a keen sense of responsibility to let the Scriptures rule and to refrain from taking a dogmatic stand where the evidence does not seem to provide sufficient basis. It also expresses confidence in the desire of Jehovah’s people as a whole to do all things as unto him and to reflect his splendid qualities in all their affairs. It expresses a willingness to leave the judgment of such intimate marital matters in the hands of Jehovah God and his Son, who have the wisdom and knowledge of all circumstances necessary to render the right decisions. It is good for us to remember that “we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God” and that “each of us will render an account for himself to God.” (Rom. 14:7-10, 12) “We must all be made manifest before the judgment seat of the Christ, that each one may get his award for the things done through the body, according to the things he has practiced, whether it is good or vile.”—2 Cor. 5:10.
It is also good to recognize that when the apostle wrote his counsel at Colossians 3:5, 6, he did not address it just to single persons but to married persons as well. He said: “Deaden, therefore, your body members that are upon the earth as respects fornication, uncleanness, sexual appetite, hurtful desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.” At 1 Thessalonians 4:3-7 Paul further counsels that “each one of you should know how to get possession of his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in covetous sexual appetite such as also those nations have which do not know God . . . For God called us, not with allowance for uncleanness, but in connection with sanctification.”
By his reference to “sexual appetite” the apostle certainly is not condemning the normal sexual desire that finds proper outlet and expression within the marriage arrangement. We have a normal appetite for food and drink and can properly satisfy it. But one can become a glutton or a drunkard by self-indulgent and unrestrained eating and drinking. So, too, one could get so preoccupied with sex that satisfying sexual desire becomes paramount and the chief aim in itself, rather than an adjunct or subordinate complement to the expressing of love that the Bible urges. When this is the case, then the individual reaches the point of greediness ‘which is idolatry,’ and the sexual desire is that which is idolized.—Eph. 5:3, 5; Phil. 3:19; Col. 3:5.
What, then, of a situation where a married person, perhaps a wife, approaches a congregational elder with the complaint that her marriage mate is abusing her by forcing sexual practices upon her that she rejects as repugnant and perverted? If the marriage mate is willing to discuss the matter, the elder, possibly in company with another elder, can offer to try to help the couple to solve their problem, giving Scriptural counsel.

What if a married person claims that certain sexual practices of the marriage mate are sufficiently gross to come within the scope of the Greek term porneia as used at Matthew 19:9 (“fornication,” New World Translation)? As has been shown, the Scriptures do not give specific information that allows for positive identification of certain sexual practices within marriage as being—or not being—porneia. It may be noted that the Greek term is drawn from a word having the basic meaning of “to sell” or to “surrender or give oneself up to,” and thus porneia has the sense of “a selling or a giving of oneself up to lust or lewdness.” The verb form (porneuo) includes among its meanings that of “to debauch.” (Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon) If a married person believes that the sexual practices of the mate, though not involving someone outside the marriage, are nevertheless of such a gross nature as to constitute a clear surrender to lewdness or a debauching in lewdness, then that must be his or her own decision and responsibility.Such a one may hold that the circumstances provide Scriptural basis for divorce.
If so, he or she must accept full responsibility before God for any divorce action that might be taken. Elders cannot be expected to express approval (Scripturally) of divorce, if they are not sure of the grounds. At the same time they are not authorized to impose their conscience on another when the matter is a questionable one. (Jas. 4:11, 12) Having expressed what Scriptural counsel they find fitting, they can then make clear to the one involved the seriousness of the matter and the full responsibility that must rest upon him or her if divorce action is taken. If a person is simply seeking a pretext to break the marriage bonds, then such a one can only expect God’s disfavor, for of such treacherous dealing with one’s mate God says that “he has hated a divorcing.” (Mal. 2:16) “God will judge fornicators and adulterers” and anyone divorcing simply on a pretext and then remarrying will not escape that judgment. (Heb. 13:4) The elders can be confident that the Lord “will both bring the secret things of darkness to light and make the counsels of the hearts manifest” in his due time. (1 Cor. 4:4, 5) Anyone who sows in deceit and treachery will not escape a harvest of suffering, for “God is not one to be mocked.”—Gal. 6:7, 8.
Even as congregation elders accord to their brothers and sisters the right to exercise their personal conscience in matters where the Scriptures are not explicit, so, too, the elders have a right to exercise their own consciences as to their view of those engaging in questionable actions. If they sincerely feel that the actions of a congregation member in these matters are such that they could not conscientiously recommend him or her for any exemplary service within the congregation, that is their prerogative.—1 Tim. 1:19; 3:2-12; 5:22.
[Footnotes]
Reference has been made to the apostle’s statements at Romans 1:24-27 regarding “the natural use” of male and female bodies. As is evident and has been consistently acknowledged, these statements are made in the context of homosexuality. They do not make any direct reference to sexual practices by husband and wife. It must also be acknowledged that even those love expressions that are completely normal and common between husband and wife would be “unnatural” for persons of the same sex and immoral for unmarried people. Whatever guidance these apostolic statements provide as regards sex practices within marriage, therefore, is indirect and must be viewed as only of a persuasive but not a conclusive nature, that is, not the basis for setting up hard and fast standards for judgment. At the same time there is the possibility and perhaps a likelihood that some sex practices now engaged in by husband and wife were originally practiced only by homosexuals. If this should be the case, then certainly this would give these practices at least an unsavory origin. So the matter is not one to be lightly dismissed by the conscientious Christian simply because no direct reference to married persons appears in the aforementioned texts.

So now here comes the flip flop!!!!!!

This is an amplification and adjustment in understanding of what appears in The Watchtower of November 15, 1974, pages 703-704, and of February 15, 1978, pages 30-32. Those who acted on the basis of the knowledge they had at the time are not to be criticized. Nor would this affect the standing of a person who in the past believed that a mate’s perverted sexual conduct within marriage amounted to porneia and, hence, obtained a divorce and is now remarried.

(This would be a classic place for the FDS to make an apology wouldn't you think or criticize them selves for such a far reaching blunder )




Watchtower 83 3/15 Honor Godly Marriage!





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.



This is an amplification and adjustment in understanding of what appears in The Watchtower of November 15, 1974, pages 703-704, and of February 15, 1978, pages 30-32. Those who acted on the basis of the knowledge they had at the time are not to be criticized. Nor would this affect the standing of a person who in the past believed that a mate’s perverted sexual conduct within marriage amounted to porneia and, hence, obtained a divorce and is now remarried.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So my question is this! Was Jehovah’s Holy Spirit directing the FDS in the early seventies? Or was it directing them in: March 1983 concerning this profoundly intimate subject?

This flat out makes me angry!!! Fighting mad!!!


truthseeker

[uglyandthin]

This is my research on the subject you bring up U&T

Does any one remember the Watchtower policy regarding sexual practices with in the marital arrangement starting in the early 70s?

This is an abstract from w74 11/15 pp. 703-704 Questions From readers ***

● Do lewd practices on the part of a married person toward that one’s own mate constitute a Scriptural basis for the offended mate to get a divorce?

There are times when lewd practices within the marriage arrangement would provide a basis for a Scriptural divorce. Of course, the Holy Scriptures do not encourage divorce nor do they command the innocent party to divorce a mate who engages in adultery or gross sexual perversion.
Regarding divorce, Jesus Christ stated: “Whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery.” (Matt. 19:9) “Everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of fornication, makes her a subject for adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”—Matt. 5:32.
Thus “fornication” is set forth as the only ground for divorce. In the common Greek in which Jesus’ words are recorded, the term “fornication” is por·nei′a, which designates all forms of immoral sexual relations, perversions and lewd practices such as might be carried on in a house of prostitution, including oral and anal copulation.
As to Jesus’ statements about divorce, they do not specify with whom the “fornication” or por·nei′a is practiced. They leave the matter open. That por·nei′a can rightly be considered as including perversions within the marriage arrangement is seen in that the man who forces his wife to have unnatural sex relations with him in effect “prostitutes” or “debauches” her. This makes him guilty of por·nei′a, for the related Greek verb por·neu′o means “to prostitute, debauch.”
Hence, circumstances could arise that would make lewd practices of a married person toward that one’s marriage mate a Scriptural basis for divorce. For example, a wife may do what she reasonably can to prevent her husband from forcing upon her perversions such as are carried on in a brothel. Yet, due to his greater strength, he might overpower her and use her for perverted sex. So as not to be prostituted in this way at another time, a Christian wife may decide to get a divorce. She could establish with the congregation that the real reason for this is por·nei′a and then proceed to get a legal divorce on any truthful grounds acceptable to the courts of the land.
If, on the other hand, the lewd practices were engaged in by mutual consent, neither mate would have a basis for claiming por·nei′a as a Scriptural ground for divorce. This is so because neither party is innocent and seeking freedom from a mate guilty of por·nei′a. Both marriage partners are guilty. Such a case, if brought to the attention of elders in the congregation, would be handled like any other serious wrongdoing.


Another Abstract from a - w78 2/15 pp. 30-32 Questions From Readers ***

● Does the Bible set forth any specific definitions as to what is moral or immoral as regards the sexual relationship between husband and wife? Is it the responsibility of congregational elders to endeavor to exercise control among congregation members in these intimate marital matters?
It must be acknowledged that the Bible does not give any specific rules or limitations as regards the manner in which husband and wife engage in sexual relations. There are brief descriptions of fitting love expressions, such as at Proverbs 5:15-20 and various verses in the Song of Solomon (1:13; 2:6; 7:6-8). These, and texts such as Job 31:9, 10, at least provide an indication of what was customary or normal as regards love play and sexual relations and coincide with what is generally viewed as customary and normal today.
The most forceful counsel in the Scriptures is that we should have complete love for God and love for our neighbor as ourselves; a husband is to love his wife as he does his own body and to cherish her and assign her honor. (Matt. 22:37-40; Eph. 5:25-31; 1 Pet. 3:7) As the apostle states, love “does not behave indecently, does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked.” (1 Cor. 13:4, 5) This would certainly preclude the forcing upon one’s marriage mate unusual practices that the mate considers distasteful or even repugnant and perverted.
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.
This should not be taken as a condoning of all the various sexual practices that people engage in, for that is by no means the case. It simply expresses a keen sense of responsibility to let the Scriptures rule and to refrain from taking a dogmatic stand where the evidence does not seem to provide sufficient basis. It also expresses confidence in the desire of Jehovah’s people as a whole to do all things as unto him and to reflect his splendid qualities in all their affairs. It expresses a willingness to leave the judgment of such intimate marital matters in the hands of Jehovah God and his Son, who have the wisdom and knowledge of all circumstances necessary to render the right decisions. It is good for us to remember that “we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God” and that “each of us will render an account for himself to God.” (Rom. 14:7-10, 12) “We must all be made manifest before the judgment seat of the Christ, that each one may get his award for the things done through the body, according to the things he has practiced, whether it is good or vile.”—2 Cor. 5:10.
It is also good to recognize that when the apostle wrote his counsel at Colossians 3:5, 6, he did not address it just to single persons but to married persons as well. He said: “Deaden, therefore, your body members that are upon the earth as respects fornication, uncleanness, sexual appetite, hurtful desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.” At 1 Thessalonians 4:3-7 Paul further counsels that “each one of you should know how to get possession of his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in covetous sexual appetite such as also those nations have which do not know God . . . For God called us, not with allowance for uncleanness, but in connection with sanctification.”
By his reference to “sexual appetite” the apostle certainly is not condemning the normal sexual desire that finds proper outlet and expression within the marriage arrangement. We have a normal appetite for food and drink and can properly satisfy it. But one can become a glutton or a drunkard by self-indulgent and unrestrained eating and drinking. So, too, one could get so preoccupied with sex that satisfying sexual desire becomes paramount and the chief aim in itself, rather than an adjunct or subordinate complement to the expressing of love that the Bible urges. When this is the case, then the individual reaches the point of greediness ‘which is idolatry,’ and the sexual desire is that which is idolized.—Eph. 5:3, 5; Phil. 3:19; Col. 3:5.
What, then, of a situation where a married person, perhaps a wife, approaches a congregational elder with the complaint that her marriage mate is abusing her by forcing sexual practices upon her that she rejects as repugnant and perverted? If the marriage mate is willing to discuss the matter, the elder, possibly in company with another elder, can offer to try to help the couple to solve their problem, giving Scriptural counsel.

What if a married person claims that certain sexual practices of the marriage mate are sufficiently gross to come within the scope of the Greek term porneia as used at Matthew 19:9 (“fornication,” New World Translation)? As has been shown, the Scriptures do not give specific information that allows for positive identification of certain sexual practices within marriage as being—or not being—porneia. It may be noted that the Greek term is drawn from a word having the basic meaning of “to sell” or to “surrender or give oneself up to,” and thus porneia has the sense of “a selling or a giving of oneself up to lust or lewdness.” The verb form (porneuo) includes among its meanings that of “to debauch.” (Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon) If a married person believes that the sexual practices of the mate, though not involving someone outside the marriage, are nevertheless of such a gross nature as to constitute a clear surrender to lewdness or a debauching in lewdness, then that must be his or her own decision and responsibility.Such a one may hold that the circumstances provide Scriptural basis for divorce.
If so, he or she must accept full responsibility before God for any divorce action that might be taken. Elders cannot be expected to express approval (Scripturally) of divorce, if they are not sure of the grounds. At the same time they are not authorized to impose their conscience on another when the matter is a questionable one. (Jas. 4:11, 12) Having expressed what Scriptural counsel they find fitting, they can then make clear to the one involved the seriousness of the matter and the full responsibility that must rest upon him or her if divorce action is taken. If a person is simply seeking a pretext to break the marriage bonds, then such a one can only expect God’s disfavor, for of such treacherous dealing with one’s mate God says that “he has hated a divorcing.” (Mal. 2:16) “God will judge fornicators and adulterers” and anyone divorcing simply on a pretext and then remarrying will not escape that judgment. (Heb. 13:4) The elders can be confident that the Lord “will both bring the secret things of darkness to light and make the counsels of the hearts manifest” in his due time. (1 Cor. 4:4, 5) Anyone who sows in deceit and treachery will not escape a harvest of suffering, for “God is not one to be mocked.”—Gal. 6:7, 8.
Even as congregation elders accord to their brothers and sisters the right to exercise their personal conscience in matters where the Scriptures are not explicit, so, too, the elders have a right to exercise their own consciences as to their view of those engaging in questionable actions. If they sincerely feel that the actions of a congregation member in these matters are such that they could not conscientiously recommend him or her for any exemplary service within the congregation, that is their prerogative.—1 Tim. 1:19; 3:2-12; 5:22.
[Footnotes]
Reference has been made to the apostle’s statements at Romans 1:24-27 regarding “the natural use” of male and female bodies. As is evident and has been consistently acknowledged, these statements are made in the context of homosexuality. They do not make any direct reference to sexual practices by husband and wife. It must also be acknowledged that even those love expressions that are completely normal and common between husband and wife would be “unnatural” for persons of the same sex and immoral for unmarried people. Whatever guidance these apostolic statements provide as regards sex practices within marriage, therefore, is indirect and must be viewed as only of a persuasive but not a conclusive nature, that is, not the basis for setting up hard and fast standards for judgment. At the same time there is the possibility and perhaps a likelihood that some sex practices now engaged in by husband and wife were originally practiced only by homosexuals. If this should be the case, then certainly this would give these practices at least an unsavory origin. So the matter is not one to be lightly dismissed by the conscientious Christian simply because no direct reference to married persons appears in the aforementioned texts.

So now here comes the flip flop!!!!!!

This is an amplification and adjustment in understanding of what appears in The Watchtower of November 15, 1974, pages 703-704, and of February 15, 1978, pages 30-32. Those who acted on the basis of the knowledge they had at the time are not to be criticized. Nor would this affect the standing of a person who in the past believed that a mate’s perverted sexual conduct within marriage amounted to porneia and, hence, obtained a divorce and is now remarried.

(This would be a classic place for the FDS to make an apology wouldn't you think or criticize them selves for such a far reaching blunder )




Watchtower 83 3/15 Honor Godly Marriage!





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.



This is an amplification and adjustment in understanding of what appears in The Watchtower of November 15, 1974, pages 703-704, and of February 15, 1978, pages 30-32. Those who acted on the basis of the knowledge they had at the time are not to be criticized. Nor would this affect the standing of a person who in the past believed that a mate’s perverted sexual conduct within marriage amounted to porneia and, hence, obtained a divorce and is now remarried.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So my question is this! Was Jehovah’s Holy Spirit directing the FDS in the early seventies? Or was it directing them in: March 1983 concerning this profoundly intimate subject?

This flat out makes me angry!!! Fighting mad!!!


truthseeker

Hi Truthseeker:

They have flip-flopped again. It took me many hours of Google searches (as I don't have an edition of the WT library CD more recent than 2004, and worse yet did not write down the references as I should have), but the "new light" that is actually "old light" re-arranged and dressed up a little bit is that a wife or husband can get a "scriptural divorce" from the ultraclean and moral congregation of true worshippers and be free to remarry by accusing thier mate of "fornication" within the marriage arrangement and then are advised to get a divorce from Caesar for whatever grounds "they" will allow. Unlike the child who is molested that needs two witnesses to secure judicial action against their perpetrator, apparently the testimony of the wife or husband alone of the alledged "fornication" is enough to secure the "scriptural divorce". I know that many will find this hard to believe, as I did, but it is true, I am not making this stuff up. Unfortunately, like I said before, I did not write down the references but these articles were written after 2004. Look under fornication, divorce (scriptural) or the like and you will find the info if your WT CD is more recent. If you were mad before, this will really get the blood pumping.

Frank