Gay Is Okay For Spouses But Not Elders

I often wonder how many of the new converts that the Jehovah's Witnesses get ever look back at what has happened in the history of their religion.

The Jehovah's Witnesses have flip-flopped time and time again on various issues. Some of the issues that have been constantly changed include:

• Who the 'Lord' in Romans 10:12-16 refers to (1903, 1940, 1978, 1980).
• Whether the people of Sodom and Gomorrah will be eligible for resurrection (1879, 1955, 1965, 1967, 1974, 1988, 1989).
• Whether blood, blood serum, and blood fractions are allowed (1940, 1945, 1956, 1958, 1959, 1961, 1964, 1974, 1975, 1978, 1982, 1983, 1990, 1995).
• Who the 'Higher Powers' in Romans 13:1 are (1916, 1943, 1964).
• When the separating of the 'sheep and goats' will take place (1919, 1923, 1995).

Just a few examples of an ever-changing belief. Which when you consider that the Jehovah's Witnesses claim God has used their corporation/religion as 'his channel' you have to wonder when God will finally make his mind up.

But this post is not so much about the ever-changing doctrine used by the Jehovah's Witnesses it goes back to 1972, specifically January 1, 1972; and the Watchtower magazine of the same date. In the section entitled "Questions From Readers" the following question is asked:

"Do homosexual acts on the part of a married person constitute a Scriptural ground for divorce, freeing the innocent mate to remarry? — U.S.A."

And the following answer is given:

"Homosexuality is definitely condemned in the Bible as something that will prevent individuals from gaining God's approval. (1 Cor. 6:9, 10) However, whether an innocent mate would Scripturally be able to remarry after procuring a legal divorce from a mate guilty of homosexual acts must be determined on the basis of what the Bible says respecting divorce and remarriage. While both homosexuality and bestiality are disgusting perversions, in the case of neither one is the marriage tie broken. It is broken only by acts that make an individual "one flesh" with a person of the opposite sex other than his or her legal marriage mate." (The Watchtower, January 1, 1972, Questions From Readers, pages 31-32)

From reading the answer given the following statements can be deduced:

• Homosexuality will prevent individuals from gaining God's approval.
• Homosexuality and bestiality are disgusting perversions.
• Neither one (homosexuality or bestiality) breaks the marriage tie.
• Adultery is the act of making 'one flesh' with a person of the opposite sex.

Their beliefs - not mine.

But in the Elder Handbook entitled "Shepherd The Flock Of God", 2010 Revision, page 59, under the heading of "Determining Whether A Judicial Committee Should Be Formed" it states:

"5. Porneia: (Lev. 20:10,13,15,16; Rom. 1:24, 26, 27, 32; 1 Cor. 6:9,10) Porneia involves immoral use of the genitals, whether in a natural or in a perverted way, with lewd intent. There must have been another party to the immorality — a human of either sex or a beast. Willing participation incurs guilt and re­quires judicial action. It is not a casual touching of the sex organs but involves the manipulation of the genitals. It includes oral sex, anal sex, and manipulation of the genitals between individuals not married to each other. (Iv p. 99; w06 7/15 pp. 29-30; w04 2/15 p. 13; wOO 11/1 p. 8 par. 6; wS3 6/1 pp. 23-26) Porneiu does not require skin-to-skin contact, copula­tion (as in penetration), or sexual climax." (Shepherd The Flock Of God, 2010 Revision, page 58)

Shepherd The Flock Of God, Page 58

Shepherd The Flock of God, Page 59

That being said, if you are a Jehovah's Witness and have sex with someone of the same sex or an animal your spouse cannot divorce you but your local Elders can form a judicial committee and judge you, and ultimately disfellowship you from the religion.

Does that make any sense? No. It makes no sense that a spouse cannot divorce their partner if they commit an act of homosexuality or bestiality but three Elders can judge you, remove you from the religion, and have you shunned for the exact same thing. It is pure hypocrisy that it is against the so-called 'one true religion' but the spouse has no right to a divorce because of the very same act.