Jehovah`s Witness/Setting the record straight....

Advertisement


Question
QUESTION: Mr. Grunbaum, I wish to address you and some of your comments, as well as those from the trouble-making coward named Sal.

First off, props to you for busting him and figuring out his writing style.  I would like to think that I helped you with that, by proving to you that "Rob" was Sal, after your arguing with me about it, and my eventually being proven correct.  So, I commend you on that....No question that was Sal who wrote you with the lie about my mother being a "shack up".  That's his low-down style.


Now, to address your comments, many of which I did not appreciate, namely your claiming that I made my mother out to be a tramp, which she is not and never has been.  Nor did I appreciate your "guess" that my father was an adulterer, as I know you made that accusation BECAUSE HE was the non-Witness in the ordeal.  It just HAD to be him, didn't it?  Well, you are wrong.

I also am quite sure that non of your "supporters" are the least bit interested in the fact that I ALSO stated that I have a very good relationship with my mother, as that isn't worthy of all the gossip and slander that you people love to employ.  Let's just focus on the one bad incident...anything to lie and slander.

Now, I am not blaming you for what Sal said, mind you.  You can't help what someone writes you in a question.  But you CAN help your own foolish remarks.  

Now, to set things straight...I said what I said, because the questioner ASKED me about my personal testimony, and how I came to know Christ.  And my parent's divorce, unfortunately, played a large part of that.  I didn't get up that morning and decide to try and make JWs look bad by talking about my mom.  Nor do I appreciate your insinuating that I was making her look like a tramp.  My mother is more of a devout JW than YOU, or any of the likes of Rando or DW, ever thought about being.  She is completely and 150% sold out to the Watchtower Society...more so now, than she was before her remarriage to my stepfather.

Her divorce from my father happend 35 years ago, and her re-marriage occured 34 years ago.  Everything that I said in my reply to that questioner, is exactly what happened, and it was a necessary fill-in-the-blank to my upbringing.  The man that my mother is married to now, and his former wife (now deceased), used to be our neighbors.  They spent a great deal of time at our home, eating meals, etc.  The did develop feelings that were not appropriate for each other, but never even discussed those feelings until both were separated.  My mother left my father, I believe, because he didn't convert.  And when it became apparent that this man was not going to reconcile with his own wife, they began to see each other.  Both have assured me there never was a physical act of adultery before marriage, and I believe that is the truth.

My father was NOT an adulterer, and my mother acknowledges to this day that she has no evidence of such.  Furthermore, she also acknowledges she had no Scriptural grounds to divorce him.  She simply didn't love him, and the opportunity arose for her to eventually have a JW husband in "the truth."  As far as I know, my now step-father's former wife (now deceased), was not an adultress either.  They simply split up, after they moved out of our neighborhood.  Both were Italians from NYC, and both had high tempers.

Now, let me be clear on several things:

1.  My mother NEVER "shacked" with this man, and I think Sal has some nerve talking about ANYONE else "shacking up", after the lies he told this board about HIS "gal", whom we all learned was his own "shack up".

2.  There was NO adultery on either part.  Both parties simply left their mates, and ended up married to each other.

3.  And FINALLY, as I have posted in the past, both my mother AND my stepfather WERE disfellowshipped for a time.  I was young then, but I would say they were out for a year, maybe two.  But it has been well over 30 years since they have BOTH been reinstated, and my mother has not looked back.  My stepdad is also in good standing, but not nearly as devout as my mother.


Now, I am getting really sick of you and these JW cowards/supporters, bringing my family into the equation.  If I want to mention a detail about my family in answer to a question, that is my prerogative.  Nobody else has the right to do so.  I have never mentioned Rando's family, nor yours, nor DW's, nor Sister T's, even though every one of you people have attacked my person and my character.  Leave my family out of it.  A few months back, some anonymous JW coward wrote DW, taking swipes at my wife and kids, and the sorry DW just said nothing about it.  I learned all I needed to know right then about him.  If one of my own brethren wrote me and attacked some JW expert's family, I would gladly tell them to leave the person's family out of it.  

My wife, nor my boys, have EVER written this board, nor are they even interested in it.  They do not have my JW upbringing, so it really is not an intense interest of theirs.

Now, that being said, I believe you need to let this reply post, in order to set the record straight.  You normally, for the most part, reject my questions.  This one should post.

Thank you for your time, and have a great day.

ANSWER: Sir ,I will honor your request only for one reason and thats our dear Sister Holland,that being said I still dont understand several comments on this subject namely Sister Holland,I never read where you said she was removed from Jehovah's congregation its just I have experienced with the sisters and requests to re-marry.

Now its clear to me adultery was committed you seem to brush that fact aside,I dont really want to harp on that because as you said all of this was many years ago and the sister is in good standing now but I have to continue with this because of my readers.


You make it sound like there was no fornication in this sorted saga but they just begin to be attracted to one another and you father was faithful to his vows as well.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong and there may have to be a follow up by you but are you saying Sister Holland is divorced from your father.

I ask this because you said:


"My mother left my father, I believe, because he didn't convert.  And when it became apparent that this man was not going to reconcile with his own wife, they began to see each other.  Both have assured me there never was a physical act of adultery before marriage, and I believe that is the truth"




This is why I had to respond when I read your comment about this subject,your explanation makes no sense,you make it sound that since your dad refused to conform to our teachings and since the witness brother had marital problems himself they just decided to be married.


I think the problem here is the word you used "separated"  as if since both parties were separated that this was grounds to be re-married ,is this what you are saying?


The whole story makes no sense thats why I got involved here.Later you confirmed my original statement both were put out of the congregation,the brothers wont remove someone unless gross sins were committed,the sister just cant leave her husband because he wont convert to JW and develop feelings for a married man,I just want to make this fact clear for the readers ,now you are welcomed to respond  and I will post but my point is made here and I dont really see the need to continue this as its  a very sensitive subject.


I know you dont appreciate me getting involved here but this is  JW site and you made it seem it was acceptable to just leave your mate and get re- married because of unreconcilable differences and that is not true,if anyone in the congregation scheme to leave their mate for another they will be judged adversely



(Malachi 2:15-16) . . .And YOU people must guard yourselves respecting YOUR spirit, and with the wife of your youth may no one deal treacherously. 16 For he has hated a divorcing,” Jehovah the God of Israel has said; “and the one who with violence has covered over his garment,” Jehovah of armies has said. “And YOU must guard yourselves respecting YOUR spirit, and YOU must not deal treacherously.



The Bible says that God hates a divorcing or to deal deceitfully with your mate,Jehovah hates the kind of divorcing that involves the frivolous putting away of one mate in order to take another which this sounds like what you are saying here.




"Her divorce from my father happend 35 years ago, and her re-marriage occured 34 years ago"




Time has no bearing on this ,I'm upset with this for you to come on a public forum with this
with her personal business knowing there are ones like Sal who sits up and reads every line looking and hoping to start trouble.


One more thought on this:


"My mother is more of a devout JW than YOU, or any of the likes of Rando or DW, ever thought about being.  She is completely and 150% sold out to the Watchtower Society...more so now, than she was before her remarriage to my stepfather"




That statement I take issue with,let me say this to you ,just because your mother was reinstated by the brothers doesn't necessarily mean she is in good standing with God

I mentioned  Malachi 2:15-16 for a reason as a warning to anyone reading this thinking they can scheme to leave their mate,I dont care who you are you can be on the GB at the Watchtower there are just some things you can do in Jehovah's visible organization,makes no difference if sexual relations took place or not,this sound like it was a scheme and that will be punished.


As I said I had to get in this and sound a warning to anyone who think they can get away with it.

You can follow up but I dont really see the need ,there is really nothing more you can add to this by continuing it will only make it worst.






Prophet/Prince

Grünbaum



Apple iPhone 4's email


















---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Good afternoon, Mr. Grunbaum.  First things first...thank you for taking my question and allowing it to post.  Also, thank you for inviting my follow up.

That being said, your thinking is very baffling to me, and the way you piece things together.  Or maybe I should say, the way you don't piece things together.  I say this, because you completely contradict yourself in the very same answer, while trying to cast doubt on what I have told you.  Example....


YOU:  "This is why I had to respond when I read your comment about this subject,your explanation makes no sense,you make it sound that since your dad refused to conform to our teachings and since the witness brother had marital problems himself they just decided to be married....

The whole story makes no sense thats why I got involved here.Later you confirmed my original statement both were put out of the congregation,the brothers wont remove someone unless gross sins were committed,the sister just cant leave her husband because he wont convert to JW and develop feelings for a married man"


REPLY:  Now from this, it appears you are trying to cast doubt on my comment that no adultery occured, by implying that the elders would not have taken action unless such had occured.

Then, you completely contradict yourself later on, by saying....


YOU:  "if anyone in the congregation scheme to leave their mate for another they will be judged adversely.....

I mentioned  Malachi 2:15-16 for a reason as a warning to anyone reading this thinking they can scheme to leave their mate,I dont care who you are you can be on the GB at the Watchtower there are just some things you can do in Jehovah's visible organization,makes no difference if sexual relations took place or not,this sound like it was a scheme and that will be punished."


REPLY:  Okay, so which is it?  Do they, or do they NOT, disfellowship people who divorce their mates and remarry without Scriptural grounds, in the absence of a "gross sin" such as adultery?

I don't think you even caught the contradiction.  First, you say "no", and then you say "yes".

And there was no “scheme”…I believe they both had feelings, but had both not later separated from their mates, then it probably would never have happened.  Neither one pursued the other, until they were both separated.  And NO, that didn’t make it okay…but that’s what happened.


Now, I am not really sure why you are having such a difficult time grasping this, especially since you are so experienced in dealing with this sort of thing.  I am quite certain you have dealt before, with Witnesses who get divorced without Scriptural grounds, and remarry, also without Scriptural grounds.

But since this seems to be so difficult, let me answer a few things you said.


YOU:  "Sir ,I will honor your request only for one reason and thats our dear Sister Holland,that being said I still dont understand several comments on this subject namely Sister Holland,I never read where you said she was removed from Jehovah's congregation its just I have experienced with the sisters and requests to re-marry"


REPLY:  I did not put their disfellowshipping in this particular reply to the person who asked about my testimony, but it has been mentioned several times before in other answers.  It is one of the things I have actually commended the local Kingdom Hall for doing, in my past replies where it has come up.  I applaud their acting on this matter, as neither one had grounds to leave their spouses.  However, that does not mean that adultery occurred…it didn’t.



As I said, they were disfellowshipped because neither of them had evidence of adultery on their former spouses, but divorced them anyway.


YOU:  "Maybe I'm reading this wrong and there may have to be a follow up by you but are you saying Sister Holland is divorced from your father."


REPLY:  Sir, you should be a detective...nothing gets past you.

Yes, unless she is now guilty of bigamy, that would be a logical conclusion to draw.

And for that reason, and for the fact that my last name is HOLLAND and that she is now re-married, she is no longer known as "Sister Holland".  She now has her current husband's, my stepfather's, last name.


YOU:  "I know you dont appreciate me getting involved here but this is  JW site"


REPLY:  The type of site has nothing to do with it.  Let's be clear...I am not upset with you for "getting involved", as I have the brains to understand that you had the question sent to you, and did not ask for it.  

Granted, you COULD have rejected it, as you tend to do other questions you don't like.  And especially since it came from the likes of Sal, and you yourself know that Sal is a trouble-making liar.  So, you could have rejected it, but that isn't the issue.  I do not hold you accountable for the questions sent to you.

However, I will say that you know as well as I do, what Sal is.  And for him, and for some of your brethren, to even write about my family in the first place, is pretty low down.  Surely you would agree with that….family should be off limits.


Now Mr. Grunbaum, this is where I really take exception to you, and your comments….


YOU:  “I think the problem here is the word you used "separated" as if since both parties were separated that this was grounds to be re-married ,is this what you are saying?”


REPLY:  This is what I mean, when I say your thinking is outside the realm of “logical”.  You freely call people “dumb”, but I’m sorry Sir, this comment of yours was just plain “dumb”, if I’ve ever seen “dumb”.  

Where in the world do you get the idea, that I believe this would be grounds for remarriage?  From what statement?  You think because I related what happened, that means that I condone it?  There is nothing even close to logical, in your thinking here.  

Then, you proceed to go on a discourse to me, about what constitutes grounds for remarriage, and what the Bible says about divorce.  That was completely unnecessary, as I was a child at the time, and had no control over it.  I am fully aware what the Scripture teaches on this, and I think we would both agree on that point, at least.

Then, you make another statement along the same lines, that is just as ridiculous as the last one, by implying that I condone such actions.  

You said about me….”you made it seem it was acceptable to just leave your mate and get re- married because of unreconcilable differences and that is not true”


REPLY:  Again, complete nonsense.  I merely explained the situation to you as to what happened.  And you imply that I believe it was okay?

You have a strange way of thinking and twisting things, for a guy who prides himself on his genius, and calls everyone else “dumb”.  Don’t call me dumb again, as long as you make statements like this.


Now, I will simplify this for you as best I can….

There was NO adultery or fornication committed, either by the innocent parties (my father and my stepfather’s former wife).  There was no adultery committed by either my mother or my stepfather, either, as far as actual relations before their marriage.  They simply did not love their spouses, they separated from them, and eventually married each other.  That is the fact of the matter, and you should even have those facts at your disposal, if you are who you claim you are.


Now, 2 more things….

YOU:  “Time has no bearing on this ,I'm upset with this for you to come on a public forum with this
with her personal business knowing there are ones like Sal who sits up and reads every line looking and hoping to start trouble.”

REPLY:  This is ridiculous.  First, you have no reason to be upset…it doesn’t involve you.  

Second, I do not spend my time thinking or worrying about what the likes of Sal thinks, or is going to do.  Sal has nothing on me, and he never will.  He tried to slander me, with your help, and he failed.  When I answer a question, I never even consider what Sal is going to think.

Why would I?  I know what he is, and his opinion of me, means absolutely nothing.  Apparently you worry about him more than I do.

I merely answered the question that was asked, as it had a great deal to do with my religious upbringing.  Had it not happened the way it did, my dad may have eventually converted, in which case I may not have ever been exposed to the Gospel.  So, it has a great deal to do with my background.

Sal plays no part in that.  If you think I am going to change the way I answer a questioner because of Sal, then you are mistaken.


YOU:  “That statement I take issue with,let me say this to you ,just because your mother was reinstated by the brothers doesn't necessarily mean she is in good standing with God”

REPLY:  Again, a ridiculous statement.  I guess you forgot who you were talking to, as I am not a JW, but am a born again Christian.  So I AGREE that her merely being reinstated, does not make her in a right standing with God.  Since she is trusting this Organization instead of Jesus Christ, then I know that Scripturally, she is not in a right standing with God.

So, that has nothing to do with anything…She IS in right standing with the Organization, and the local congregation, however.  She admits she was wrong, and I will say it again…there is NO ONE in your Organization, any more devout than she is.

If that statement offends you, then too bad.  My mother would be APPALLED by the conduct of 4 JWs on here, you included.  I will tell you this….my mother would not willfully LIE about anyone, nor would she condone it by validating a proven liar, as you have done.  So yes, I will place her love for the Organization right up there above yours, or any other JW on here who lies.  

I believe lying and slander are also “gross sins”, are they not, Sir?  Why do you have no problem with those sins, and even commend those who commit those sins unrepentantly?

I recall asking you to set your lying brother Rando straight, on my mom’s status, as you could have easily checked on it.  And I recall you telling me that you didn’t “want to do that”, because you would have to speak out against another “brother” on the board.  Remember that?  You knew there was a lie, and you chose to look the other way.

So, please do not talk about “throwing people in the streets” for their gross sins, unless you really mean it, without playing favorites..

Yes, my mother divorced my father when I was young, and got remarried with no Scriptural grounds.  And as a result, both her and my stepfather were disfellowshipped for a time.  They have been reinstated for many years now, and my mother swallows every single teaching that comes from this Organization, and is one of the most devout women I know for her religion.

There is nothing else to explain.


Thank you for taking my question, and for allowing this to be set straight in public, since you allowed the low-life Sal to make false insinuations about my mother.

What he can do, is leave my family out of it, and worry about things in his own life.  If he were so concerned, why did he write you instead of me, as if you would know what really happened without investigating?  Doesn’t that show you he was only trying to dig up dirt, instead of being concerned about my family?  Why you even responded to him, is a mystery to me.  I would have expected more wisdom from you on this, especially where one of your sisters is involved.

Anyway, thanks for taking the question, and allowing the follow up to post, as you promised.



Good day, Sir.

ANSWER: Let me start out by saying I will have the last word here,I will respond to your follow up and cut this thing off. I wished you would  have not followed up as I said because its only making you your mother and the brother look bad.


There are 3 spiritual casualties in this thats why it will not end well,when a person dedicate their life to Jehovah they are saying you vow to put him first and do his will,no one makes a person get baptized but if one does then they are responsible for their actions.

The innocent ones in this is your dad the brothers wife and you so the actions of the brother and your mother has stumbled several ones here.


I really didn't want to get into all of this as to the repercussions of their actions I just wanted to let the readers know this was not acceptable but you followed up any way.




I have to respond now and give more insight on this as readers will be looking at this now.




Just know this Derrick ,on a personal note before I begin: I'm sorry this happened to you and your dad but I see it all the time,there are not enough brothers in the congregation and sisters make bad choices purely for selfish reasons.




You:

REPLY:  Now from this, it appears you are trying to cast doubt on my comment that no adultery occured, by implying that the elders would not have taken action unless such had occured.




I will assume you meant to say sexual relations because they are both adulters that is why I wished you wouldn't have contined this thing.
Jesus said:



(Luke 16:18# . . .“Everyone that divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he that marries a woman divorced from a husband commits adultery.

#Matthew 5:32# 32 However, I say to YOU that everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of fornication, makes her a subject for adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.



This is why some of what you say makes no sense a brother doesn't have to have sex with another mans wife to become an adulter.


God is not one to mock :

#Hebrews 13:4# . . .Let marriage be honorable among all, and the marriage bed be without defilement, for God will judge fornicators and adulterers.. . .


#Proverbs 6:32# 32 Anyone committing adultery with a woman is in want of heart; he that does it is bringing his own soul to ruin.

#1 Corinthians 6:9-10) . . .What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, 10 nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom.



Adultery is a serious sin thats why I said just because the brothers reinsteated the parties doesn't mean the matter is over in heaven.


Since they were removed from his visible organization there had be a sound scriptural basis for forming a judicial committee.




You:


REPLY:  Okay, so which is it?  Do they, or do they NOT, disfellowship people who divorce their mates and remarry without Scriptural grounds, in the absence of a "gross sin" such as adultery?



I still dont understand what you be saying here ,it seem like you dont know what adultery is



*** it-1 p. 642 Divorce ***

Jesus said that “everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of fornication, makes her a subject for adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Mt 5:32) By this, Christ showed that if a husband divorces his wife for reasons other than her “fornication” (por·nei´a), he exposes her to adultery in the future. That is so because the unadulterous wife is not properly disunited from her husband by such a divorce and is not free to marry another man and have sexual relations with another husband




This is why this is a very serious thing your mother is in,you just cant leave a mate as a witness and marry another man it has nothing to do if they had relations before or not ,I dont see what it is you are talking about,at some point they had relations and then they became guilty.


*** it-1 p. 642 Divorce ***

When Christ said that whoever “marries a divorced woman commits adultery,” he was referring to a woman divorced on grounds other than “on account of fornication” (por·nei´a). Such a woman, though divorced legally, would not be divorced Scripturally.




You:

And there was no “scheme”…I believe they both had feelings, but had both not later separated from their mates, then it probably would never have happened.  Neither one pursued the other, until they were both separated.  And NO, that didn’t make it okay…but that’s what happened.




That will be the determing factor if this was a scheme just to rid themselves of their mates.
I pray to Jehovah in heaven itself that this was not the case,as elders we are not judges but shepherds





You:

And for that reason, and for the fact that my last name is HOLLAND and that she is now re-married, she is no longer known as "Sister Holland".  She now has her current husband's, my stepfather's, last name.



Correction I spoke truth she is sister Holland,I dont think I have to go into it all over again.




You:


Where in the world do you get the idea, that I believe this would be grounds for remarriage?  From what statement?  You think because I related what happened, that means that I condone it?  There is nothing even close to logical, in your thinking here.  



You made a blank statement of what happened on a witness site and it didn't matter if you commented on the right or wrong of it, I did ,you said:


"My father was never a member of the religion, but did attend meetings with my mother some, up until the time that she left him for a JW man in the congregation who was also separated from his wife."



I didn't like it when I read it and still dont,my personal involment had nothing to do with your approval or not.I just dont think you should have made this public.





You:

I believe lying and slander are also “gross sins”, are they not, Sir?  Why do you have no problem with those sins, and even commend those who commit those sins unrepentantly?

I recall asking you to set your lying brother Rando straight, on my mom’s status, as you could have easily checked on it.  And I recall you telling me that you didn’t “want to do that”, because you would have to speak out against another “brother” on the board.  Remember that?  You knew there was a lie, and you chose to look the other way.




Sir I am not a spiritual policeman where just because someone makes an accucsation I get involved in having the brothers form a hearing ,if that the case that would be all I did ,
I cant contact the local elders at the congregation and request such a thing,that would be an abuse of power,its not how we settle problems:


(Matthew 18:15-17) . . .Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go lay bare his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. 17 If he does not listen to them, speak to the congregation. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector.



I believe I told you the brother has no knowedge of who your mother is ,yet you wanted me to supercede the steps here and go directly into an investigation of the brother ,first of all we dont know if his real name is Rando ,that could be his first name for all we know,what I look like spending untold hours world wide list of 7 million names looking for him.That is not my purpose on this site.



You:

What he can do, is leave my family out of it, and worry about things in his own life.  If he were so concerned, why did he write you instead of me, as if you would know what really happened without investigating?  Doesn’t that show you he was only trying to dig up dirt, instead of being concerned about my family?  Why you even responded to him, is a mystery to me.  I would have expected more wisdom from you on this, especially where one of your sisters is involved.




I agree your family is off limits thats why I didn't really want to get more into this so just let this be the last word on this,I mean if you just have to keep this thing going with yet another follow up I understand this is familty here but
as far as my personal involment its always because of the readers world wide and how we are viewed and because this involved one of the sisters I took no delight in my involment and will pray to Jehovah personally about this.





Prophet/Prince
D.S









---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: One final, short follow-up, just to clarify so that we know we are on the same page.

First, I thank you for your closing remark about praying for the situation.  That was very nice of you.  I have prayed for you, as well, although I know you don't covet my prayers, at least you can appreciate the motivation behind it, as I do yours.

To clarify how you are defining adultery, Sir, I am well aware of what constitutes adultery, and pretty much agree with what you wrote.  However, I was using the word "adultery" SPECIFICALLY in regards to a sexual act that led to a divorce, which did not happen.  

I thought I made it clear how I was using the word, when I stated in my first writing....

"Both have assured me there never was a physical act of adultery before marriage, and I believe that is the truth."

I know it was long, and perhaps you just overlooked that, but I was referring to the PHYSICAL act of adultery, leading to the divorce, which the liar Sal implied my mother was doing by "shacking up".  And THAT did not happen.

Also, you first implied that my father must have been the adulterer in the marriage, and I believe you were referring to physical adultery.  And that is not the case.  However, if you want to look at EVERY aspect of how adultery could be committed, then I am sure you are aware of Jesus' words in Matthew chapter 5, that a man who LOOKS on a woman with lust, has committed adultery in his heart.  So, if you want to make that argument, then my dad was an adulterer against her if he ever one time looked at a woman with lust.

I said all that to say this....I fully understand, and agree, with what constitutes Biblical adultery.  But that is not the context in which it was raised by Sal, nor the context in which I was responding to it either.

I was referring to a physical act, which never occured.  You may make the point that it came later on after the remarriage.  Fine....but we were talking about adultery, in the sense of it being what caused the marriage to dissolve...not an after-the-fact.

I also know for a fact that your religion does NOT teach that a situation such as this, is remedied by returning to the previous mate, once the remarriage has occured.  Yet, to be consistent with your comments, that is what you should be saying.  Otherwise, why was reinstatement even a possibility, as long as they were remarried?  Surely you don't view it as a CONTINUED state of adultery....If you do, then your personal belief is not in harmony with the Society's.


YOU:  "I believe I told you the brother has no knowedge of who your mother is ,yet you wanted me to supercede the steps here and go directly into an investigation of the brother ,first of all we dont know if his real name is Rando ,that could be his first name for all we know,what I look like spending untold hours world wide list of 7 million names looking for him.That is not my purpose on this site."

ME:  Look, I'm not asking you to pursue this with Rando.  He's mentally unstable anyway, as you also know.  He makes himself look foolish all by himself.  I simply remember when he shot himself in the foot, by revealing my exact location, which made it EASY to verify his claim about my mom was false.

But to address you on this, no, it would not take you long to find out who he is.  You are good friends with DW, and I dare say, knew one another before he came to the board.  He is close friends with Rando...wouldn't take you 10 minutes to find out.

Look, I don't care about that anyway.  I can expose his lies all by myself.  I was just proving a point, when you talk about "gross sins" and throwing people in the streets, yet you condone Rando, and even recommend him.

I guess you forgot that it was YOU, who had to correct him about advancing views contrary to the Society, and you also know he is a liar.  If you don't want to pursue his identity, that is fine....But you have recommended and validated him.  Big difference.


In closing, I appreciate your agreement that people's families are off limits.  I hope some of the less intelligent, and less mature JW readers who have taken cheap shots at my family, will see your comment here, and understand there is nothing Christian about that.

They need to understand that hatred consumes people, and their hatred for me has been such, that they have slandered their own spiritual sister, just to slander me.  I believe that is going just a bit beyond what is "Christian".  

Yeah, you're right....Rando has no idea who my mother is.  That is why he had no business lying, or commenting about her.  Surely you get that point.  Thing is, he doesn't even have the integrity to print a retraction or apology for slandering his own sister in the religion, because of his hatred for me.  Yet, he is supposedly of "the anointed".  Yeah, sure he is.


Remember Sir, I didn't bring this up...I merely answered a question, and Sal wrote to you about it, making my reply necessary.  The whole thing could have been avoided, had you just rejected his question.  Then, nobody would have seen it, and neither you nor me would have had a need to explain anything to the readers.

What happend 34 years ago, has nothing to do with me as a person.  Nor does it have anything to do with my mother's status today, unless you believe that a person is only partially "forgiven" when they ask Jehovah for forgiveness.  I think what happened, has only served to make her more zealous for the Organization.  Since being reinstated, she has never wavered....not once.

Thanks for your personal kind words.  Please respond to this last one, so that the others will post.  You may have the last word, as this will hopefully be the last time I need to follow-up, provided your reply raises no more issues that need clarifying.

Take care, and have a good day.


Derrick

Answer
Ok let this be the last of it,I believe everything that needed to be said here has been said.


[Once again before I respond I want to express my feelings of my regret of this situation]





You:



To clarify how you are defining adultery, Sir, I am well aware of what constitutes adultery, and pretty much agree with what you wrote.  However, I was using the word "adultery" SPECIFICALLY in regards to a sexual act that led to a divorce, which did not happen.  

I thought I made it clear how I was using the word, when I stated in my first writing....

"Both have assured me there never was a physical act of adultery before marriage, and I believe that is the truth."

I know it was long, and perhaps you just overlooked that, but I was referring to the PHYSICAL act of adultery, leading to the divorce, which the liar Sal implied my mother was doing by "shacking up".  And THAT did not happen.



No I didn't overlook what you wrote I made it clear that made no difference if the act was before or afterwards it still led to adultery.








You:


I also know for a fact that your religion does NOT teach that a situation such as this, is remedied by returning to the previous mate, once the remarriage has occured.  Yet, to be consistent with your comments, that is what you should be saying.  Otherwise, why was reinstatement even a possibility, as long as they were remarried?  Surely you don't view it as a CONTINUED state of adultery....If you do, then your personal belief is not in harmony with the Society's.






I thought I made it clear when I said:


"That will be the determing factor if this was a scheme just to rid themselves of their mates.
I pray to Jehovah in heaven itself that this was not the case,as elders we are not judges but shepherds"



(Galatians 6:7) 7 Do not be misled: God is not one to be mocked. . .



*** g94 2/8 p. 21 What Kind of Divorcing Does God Hate? ***

, faithless treatment of an innocent mate is a heinous sin in God’s eyes. A man who takes the best years of a woman’s life and then puts her away, perhaps in favor of a younger woman, is indeed a traitor.




So what I'm saying is if this was a scheme to get rid of each others mate by seperating
and then later run to the elders it wont work,the elders cant save you,just bebause they are welcomed back into the congregation.


Now I will say this [I dont think this was the case with sister Holland]

Ill tell you how I know,God has angels watching the congregation and they are the ones who render actions for what we do,the more I read what you say about the sister the more I'm convinced the matter is loosed in heaven and not bound.



The angels were well aware of what was going on and watched closely if this was a scheme.This is all Ill say on this.  

Jehovah`s Witness

All Answers


Answers by Expert:


Ask Experts

Volunteer


Benyamin Grünbaum

©2016 About.com. All rights reserved.