WOL: Free to remarry

by Moxy 22 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  somebody

  I'm dumbfounded at this comment from on of the JWs,

  Thankfully technology is such that surveillance is easy. A careful study of the persons habits and patterns and a weekend or two of stakeouts should give you enough proof to make your case. Hey, if you were in my area, I'd help with the stakeout. I'd get out my night vision goggles and high power camera lens and you'd be free, most likely.

  ha! I can't imagine what kind of people would actually do such a thing. and what kind of an explanation they'd give to the judge in court when they got arrested. I hope the poster wasn't serious. If he was, then I'd say that this man is tainted and perverted severely by the JW cult.

  believe it or not, I have read somewhere ( I don't remember where, but I can try and find it again for anyone who would like the info )in one publication from the wbts that if your mate has sex with an animal ( no, not the human animal ), and admits it, that it's not reason enough for a JW to obtain a scriptual divorce. the sex HAS to be with a human only and has to be pentration. if it was just oral sex, that doesn't constitute a scriptual reason either.

  it's amazing what people will believe and put up with.

  peace,
  somebody
• 

  Grout

  In theory, two witnesses are required to prove a charge of adultery.
• 

  Francois

  Why would an honest, upstanding JW need "...night vision goggles and high power camera lens."? That sounds like the equipment needed by a determined, dedicated voyeurist. I guess if you're prevented from getting any, you can alway equip yourself with "night vision goggles and a high power camers lens," watch others getting in on, and get a good grasp on your problem that way, huh?

  My divorce was final before the elders ever even heard about it.

  Francois
• 

  Esmeralda

  Ha.

  Well that whole survellience/stalking thing explains for a certainty now how a tire on my car got slashed at the hotel I was staying at on my first overnight stay with my new boyfriend (now husband, and it was POST DIVORCE so in my eyes, and the eyes of the law I was single. But who cares about caesers law, eh?)

  He probably tailed me. Nevermind the fact that I had already told him I was going, told him that he could notify the elders when I got back. Never mind the fact that he tried to talk me into going to bars to pick someone up and offered me money to take a 'vacation' out of state if I "wanted to" while we were still married.

  No dice. I didn't do anything until AFTER I had that divorce decree in my hands, and even then I made the decisions I did because of the fact that he told me in no uncertain terms that he would make my life a living hell if he didn't get to "remarry in a Kingdom Hall." All he cared about was appearances, and I had no doubt he would get violent if he didn't get his way. I didn't give a care at that point what the JW's thought of me anyway (except my family...) so I followed my gut instincts and the advice of a friend who said..."Safety first."
  meaning, do whatever it takes to get the lunatic out of your life.

  Course I know now why he was in such a hurry. He already had a girlfriend, and was engaged within 8 weeks of the divorce. The fact that raised some eyebrows at the KH didn't stop him from marrying her there.

  Oh, and did I mention that he liked to stay out all night "at the bar" for years previously and rarely came home smelling like smoke?

  Did I mention that the woman he married was a 'friend' of mine whom I had known since I was 12, and that she had been after him the entire time we were married? I did, in fact predict to two people in advance that she would be his second wife. They thought I was being paranoid.

  She got what she wanted...and now she has the same blank, living death look in her eyes that I did when I was married to the creep. I would have warned her...but who would have listened to the disfellowshipped "adulterous" wife?

  These people make me ill.

  He's still an 'upstanding' brother. I'm still shunned. But anyone here who knows what I lived with in that marriage will most likely understand why I played things out exactly as I did.

  And it worked. "Safety first" worked.

  ps hope this post makes sense. Hard things to remember, makes me ramble.
• 

  Grout

  Esmeralda: Your experience rings many bells with me. My stepfather was concerned only with control of his new show family. And, when that control failed -- in no small part due to his molesting my sisters -- he became focussed solely on how the divorce would play out in the court of congregation opinion.

  One silver lining in the otherwise pitch-black cloud of JW handling of child molesters: As of a few years ago, no molester can ever serve in any official capacity in the congregation, no matter how "repentant" he is or how much time has passed. It does my heart good to know that that S.O.B. ex-stepfather has cut himself off forever from his lifetime goal of elderhood.
• 

  Esmeralda

  Grout, sweetie, I like you already. You seem like a nice kid. That's why I really hope that you're kidding about thinking that molesters can't serve as elders again, because they can, and they do.

  Have you been to silentlambs.org? You have to read whats there. : http://www.silentlambs.org also, more about my marriage is up there on the new "batteredlambs" site.

  I'm glad you found the board. Keep talking, it'll help. Especially if you're about to find out what I think you are about to find out about the way molesters are handled, (not handled!) by the Borg. We're listening if you need to talk about this more indepth.

  Hang in there kid...

  Note to oldtimers on the board: it never gets easier to watch people make these kinds of discoveries, does it?
  *hug*
  Es
• 

  Grout

  Esmeralda: I was oversimplifying, perhaps, when I said that molesters can't serve. What I meant was, those molesters that are proven to the arbitrary standards of a committee to be guilty of molesting a child cannot serve in any official capacity ever. That's an actual administrative decision of the Society, no doubt at the behest of their ever-more-influentual lawyers.

  As it happens, my stepfather actually admitted doing what he did because he knew it wouldn't be called fornication and therefore would not be grounds for DF or divorce. Only later did he realize the consequences of his confession. Furthermore, both of my sisters wrote the committee letters, so the "two witnesses" criterion was met even without the confession. I am all too aware that many guilty of molestation are found not guilty for reasons of insufficient evidence, and that many more are never brought before a commitee.

  I don't mind your trying to help me along ... in fact I appreciate it; I like you already, too ... but please realize that I'm 37, raised as a witness, a former Ministerial Servant, and far more disillusioned than the average newbie here.

  *sigh* If only there weren't so much evil taking our time from what we'd rather do with our lives.
• 

  Esmeralda

  I like you already, too ... but please realize that I'm 37, raised as a witness, a former Ministerial Servant, and far more disillusioned than the average newbie here.

  ack! Sorry, Grout, I didn't mean to seem that I was talking 'down' to you. I just always have a habit of assuming people are younger than I am! (I'm 30) I was born in, dunked in the pool at 12, married at 19 to a servant and the PO's daughter in law for seven years.

  I'm sorry that you're disillusioned. Been there. There is lots you can gain from the folks around here, hopefully it will help you to move on so that you can spend more time living.

  I've been doing that myself lately, and I highly recommend it :)

  Speaking of which, time to log off and spend some time with my sweetie. Have a good weekend and again welcome,
  es
• 

  Grout

  ... spend more time living ...

  Darn, that sounds good. Thanks for the reality check.
• 

  comment

  The article "somebody" was referring to above appeared in the January 1, 1972 Watchtower under Questions for Readers. It said: "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 Society then reversed its position in the December 15, 1972 Watchtower, stating that homosexual and bestial acts were in fact valid grounds for a Christian divorce.

  The Society's writers clearly had sex on the brain that year. The December 1, 1972 Watchtower made oral and anal sex disfellowshipping acts. It stated that "the vast majority of persons would normally reject as repugnant the practice of oral copulation, as also anal copulation," and that "several states of the United States have for long had laws against precisely such practices." The prohibition applied fully to married people.

  The 1972 Watchtower bound volume truly is a cornucopia of spiritual gems.

  comment