Question about "marking" in the congregation (page 2)

ninja

because I'm marked....brian and sharon gault won't allow their kids near my house......even though all the other kids at the hall are allowed....not to worry....their kids are a couple of brats anyway.....he he

passwordprotected

"because I'm marked....brian and sharon gault won't allow their kids near my house......even though all the other kids at the hall are allowed....not to worry....their kids are a couple of brats anyway.....he he"

Yeah, sounds like you had a lucky escape.

jabberwock

They use that card to keep people from doing things that, while scripturally acceptable, might "stumble" others.

But people can be disfellowshipped for doing things that are "scripturally acceptable". If that is the case why would marking be necessary?

Things like...masturbating, can get you "marked".

Masturbating will NOT get you marked. Even though the process differs from congregation to congregation (the process of marking that is!) I'm pretty sure that this is not a marking offense.

Besides, if someone was marked for masturbating how would the congregation know who the masturbator was?

jabberwock

To marry in the Lord is about as close to a direct command as you'll find in the NT, yet the WTS doesn't disfellowship for this, they 'only' mark the person.

Excellent point. I still cannot understand why this is not a disfellowshipping offense.

In practice, I think dating a non-Witness is the only real marking offense. There may be others on the books and I'm sure some people have been marked for other things, but it seems to me that this is almost always the reason. Of course by that logic porneia could be considered the only disfellowshipping offense. By the way, since it covers so many different things can we call it the porneia spectrum?

My understanding was that dating someone who wasn't a Witness was what got you marked not marrying them. From what I was told, by an elder in reference to a specific situation he was dealing with, if the person married the non-Witness they would be, for all practical purposes, unmarked (or is it demarked?). Since dating was the offense, after the couple was married it was, "clearly evident that the individual has abandoned his disorderly course ".

If marriage is the actual marking offense wouldn't it be impossible to abandon your disorderly course without getting divorced? I suppose instead they demand that you publicly express regret or remorse over marrying someone to whom you are still happily married. Asinine. How could anyone truly believe someone who said such a thing?

All of this goes to show how poorly defined and inconsistently applied marking is.

jabberwock

passwordprotected

From what I was told, by an elder in reference to a specific situation he was dealing with, if the person married the non-Witness they would be, for all practical purposes, unmarked (or is it demarked?). Since dating was the offense, after the couple was married it was, " clearly evident that the individual has abandoned his disorderly course "

And here-in lies the problem with marking; inconsistency.

Marrying the non-JW does not lift the marking. The marking stays in place until the elders start inviting the person to their homes or include them in some social activity. That serves as a sign that the person is no longer marked.

So, what lifts the marking on a person who married a non-JW?

Public testimony that they regret disobeying Jehovah.

If there's a WT article on only marrying in the Lord, the marked person could answer that the best course is to obey Jehovah and only marry another Jehovah's Witness. This would serve as public acknowledgement that they regret their course.

However, that would also mean that they're publicly saying they regret marrying their spouse. Side-point, I know of sisters who've married fantastic guys, really great people who are good husbands. However, because they aren't JWs, the sister has to publicly state regret over marrying them.

One sister in our former congregation was marked for dating a non-JW. She's been married to him now for around 3 years. She's still marked. This means that, other than the meetings and ministry, she has no social contact with her "Christian brothers and sisters".

Once again, true Christian love in action.

It should be noted that marking is mentioned once (?) in the Christian scriptures, but the WTS has created a whole doctrine and law out of it.

mouthy

I was marked a couple of years before they D/F me.
I was told by a sister,No elder told me though
BECAUSE I had read "The Orwellian Mind Of Jehovah's Witness"
She had been advised by the elder,to avoid me.

undercover

I remember when it was done as OMG describes, but it seems (and I'm relying on memory from back when I was active, so it's not necessarily current) that at some point they quit announcing the talk as a marking talk.

Instead they would give the talk on not marrying in the Lord, using OMG's illustration, and those in attendance who knew of anyone, whether it was Annie or anyone else, would take this info as reason to "mark" such ones.

Marking was to be a private affair, not something one announced or made public. Say they gave the talk and you knew Annie was in violation of the counsel. It would be your christian JW duty to "mark" Annie and limit your socialization with her. You would not tell others this, though it would probably get figured out sooner or later.

The problem got to be that a lot of dubs used marking as a tool to express their righteousness. Say Sister Nosy decided to mark Annie. Instead of keeping to herself, she made sure to tell all her friends, and anyone else who would listen, that she had decided to mark Annie. Sometimes it had a trickle down effect...especially if Sister Nosy was an elder's wife. Other biddies would feel the need to follow Sister Nosy's footsteps and pretty soon Annie was being shunned as if she were DFd.

I think the Society has quietly dropped the term of "marking", though they still practice it to a degree without giving it a proper name or description. They still counsel current dubs to limit association with other dubs who may not be exemplar in the congregation. They still give local needs parts on situations of local dubs practicing things against the rules and expect the congregation to take heed to avoid any person practicing the bad thing. It's still "marking", they just don't call it that.

Olin Moyles Ghost

@Atlantis, thanks for the info. Looks like the official policy is still as I recall it. And, if I recall correctly, the Organized book was issued in 2004/05. So, the material quoted by Atlantis is fairly current.

Of course, as several have recounted, it can work out differently in practice.

carla

Try explaining all this to a non jw who knows nothing of the org other than the usual no flag & possibly no blood & no holidays- marking, private reproof, public reproof, df-ing & public announcement, da-ing, faders, apostates according to jw's & how to treat them..... makes the head spin. Then be ready for the question that always follows, 'and you mean to say they claim to be a Christian group'?

isaacaustin

marking was just created to answer the question raised as to why JWs shun dfed persons when 2 Thes 3:14 says to not consider the person an enemy but continue admonishing them as a brother. In the NWT they translate the identical Greek word as 'quit mixing in company with' in ! Co 5 and as 'stop associating with' at Thes...to make it appear as 2 different scenario and hope the JW does not make the connection and see that @ Thes explains how to apply 1 Cor 5. Thus they created marking, and state 1 Cor 5 applies to gross sins while 2 Thes applies to lesser sins.

Question about "marking" in the congregation

Share this