I have to completely agree with the comment of LongHairGal, it suits the interest of this religion to have a number of unmarried sisters who willingly slave their lives away in service or other assignments in the cong. If some of them married outside the org, the grip of the cong. would loosen as they would spend time with their families and careers. If there were many single men, the rules would surely not be so strict. Because the options are so limited and dating is supposed to take place only with chaperones, I know of many young ones who find themselves in unsuccessful, unhappy marriages.
"MARRY ONLY IN THE LORD"CRUEL LAW FOR WOMEN
by jam 25 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
dinah
It's a control measure. If you marry a Non-JW it will take away time from meetings and field service. It also insures more baptisms as these couples have children.
-
WTWizard
The problem is that the witlesses do not tolerate other viewpoints. If a witless married a worldly person, that worldly person could use the Bible to blow apart the witless's faith. Take the holidays--all it takes is a look at Colossians 2:16 and surrounding verses, and there goes that assertation that people should be disfellowshipped for celebrating Christmas. All it takes is to read Ephesians 2:8 and 9 to blow the illusion that field circus is mandatory for everyone. The Filthful and Disgraceful Slavebugger would continue teaching these blatantly unscriptural positions, and that would make the witless spouse examine how many other blatant inconsistencies the religion has, and probably end up turning apostate.
It also limits the choices, with the obvious "choice(??)" of going to Beth Hell or the Value Destroyer Training School (soon to be the single men's Value Destroyer Training School), pio-sneer, or reach out for missionary work (as if Nigeria needed any more scams). This rule also allows the hounders to, at their discretion, to rule that someone hasn't been "in the truth tm "long enough", and then stall as to what "long enough" is until it gets taken out from under your feet. And, with the increasing difficulty in mixing with the opposite sex at the a$$emblies in recent years for rules, I doubt there are going to be very many decent marriages in the future.
Another thing I find blatantly offensive about the Washtowel Slaveholdery's intrusive policies is that the couple doesn't really get a chance to know each other well before they are committed. I, for one, find nothing wrong with two people living together in a sexual arrangement without being married. Also, the strict supervision of "dates(??)" prevents the couple from finding out whether or not they are compatible. Then they get married, and find out they are not (or the stress of being witlesses makes them incompatible), and they are stuck with it.
-
garyneal
I spoke with my sister-in-law last Friday night as she was visiting us and baby sitting our kids so that my wife and I could attend a company Christmas party. I asked her if she was considering becoming a witness. Her response, "Umm, I don't think that would be a good idea for me right now." I said, "Well, if you have any intentions of returning to the religion my advice to you is to not marry a 'worldly' man. Marry a witness because speaking as a 'worldly' man, my life would've been simpler, especially this time of year, had I not married a witness. Having my wife reject my invitation to a second Christmas party this year actually hurted my feelings."
Then I qualified that with, "Well, I suppose it depends on the 'worldly' man that you marry. Some may become witnesses."
I am not sure if she was surprised to hear that advice coming from me or not. I'm sure her mom is pushing her into this cult all the time.
Anyway, they have an aunt who really wants to find a man but as long as she has her daughter (who has cerebral palsy) to take care of, she will find it difficult to find one. Of course, her attitude and demeanor also play a role, CP daughter or not, I would not want her. Ceasar takes good care of them, however, as she gets a monthly stipend that more than provides enough for her to buy a new SUV and house. Her daughter is her full time job.
that maybe true, but damn if I haven't seen witness women marry an unbeliever.
Lots of them in my wife's cong as well as a couple in her family. If it is sooooo important that they marry only witnesses, why all the unbeleiving spouses? Not as if I don't already know.
I think if their religion weren't so offensive and laughable, they may have a much larger following.
-
DaCheech
I've got this lebanese/muslim customer, and he's married to a armenian/christian woman.
the other day while shhoting the breeze, I asked: "xxYY" how do you get along with wife when you're diffrent religion....
he said the most intelligent thing.......... there is only one god.
-
dgp
I wonder how many male JW teen-agers gave up their highschool sweethearts because they were supposed to marry only in the Borg. I also wonder how many perfectly good people found themselves rejected, at any age, simply because they weren't in the Borg. Or some other religions, to be fair.
And then, we have to think of the many marriages that wouldn't have happened in the Borg itself were it not for the fact that the people in question were only allowed to marry another witness. And how many others are "enjoying the gift of singleness".
And, since we're discussing this, let's expand the subject and think of how many friendships or simple human relationships have been ruined or never happened because one of the parties was not a witness and therefore bad.
-
jam
dgp; how come the brother in question chose to marry someone so much older?
Strang case, she was a pioneer and he was her study at a very young age.
In most cases you turn the study over to A male, which she did when he became
older, but as soon as he got baptize they got married. The sister was not A great
looker but really A sweet person, he was in love with this sister he adored her.
The last I heard they were still togather and pioneers, this was in 1973.
-
RebeccaChi
Amen WTWizard! Your post cracked me up! (The Nigerian comment made me spit tea onto my keyboard!)
What are NEW rules on associating with other singles at assemblies?!
-
dgp
Jam: I get it: she was great. My point, however, was that under usual circumstances it's not so common for a couple to consist of a much older woman and a much younger man.
-
clearpoison
Some reflexions on this, purely independent personal thinking. No statistical data to support these statements.
1. The rule in overall (if assumed to be correct) was not directed to any specific gender. What was power relations between men/women in congregations those days, do not know.
2. Today, at least in places I've visited women are strong, I emphasise, strong majority of witnesses. Thus negative effects of this rule will mostly hit women, by default. Unless one man could have multiple spouses the ratio 2:1, 3:1 etc. will just make it statistically impossible to get it right.
3. For relationbuilding, men are not that eager in most cases. If allowed they are more interested in dipping the sausage in many ponds.
4. Getting older, without having a children around, may not be such problem to a manly man than to a women. Mostly due emotional reasons, but even due some physical limits for having kids, age that is. For men please refer to point 3. and note that they can be fruitful until they die. (even after, if some freezing things have been done).
Yes looking at this day's congregation it seems cruel, as in my opinion women seek for steady relationship and want to have own children, more so than those few men around. But the background when this rule/guidance was written might very well have been totally different, therefore the law as such might not been meant to be difficult to follow. So the question really is how it is implemented today. Funny enough this is not DF offense, even the mixing-relation is very visible in the community. Yes, you will loose your wonderful privileges, the same applies those openly supporting your relation, but it is not DF thing. Some sensibility is obviously around, but is it sensible enough is of course debatable.
CP