Weird Statement In QFR Article, 11-15-1952

snowbird

The question was how to treat disfellowshipped relatives.

The poster, UnderCover, presented the scanned article in the thread about shunning according to the 7-15-2011 Watchtower.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/208846/2/re-enforcing-the-shunning-of-immediate-family-WT-7-15-11

The last paragraph reads thusly:

The marriage partner would render the marriage dues according to the law of the land and in due payment for all benefits bestowed and accepted.

I've read that article numerous times, on this site and others, but this is the first time I've paid attention to the above statement.

What in the world???!!!

Surely the person who wrote that must realize that this is making marital relations analogous to prostitution!!!

This is crazy!!!

Syl

sd-7

Whoa, whoa, whoa! That sounds like the party who is not DF'd is going to be disgusted and rendering the due as if to a stranger, like a prostitute would do. Like it's now a business arrangement.

Actually, that calls to mind something my wife said to me during our bad times. She said that it would be kind of disgusting to have sex with me, presumably based on my criticism of the WT. To me that sounded a lot like 'I'll feel like I'm being raped if I have sex with you, because you're an apostate'. She didn't say those words, but it felt like she had.

It's one of the worst memories I can think of. I'm grateful there won't be any more memories like that. Disturbing find, Syl. Brought that unpleasant memory back to mind for me.

--sd-7

snowbird

I'm soooooo sorry, SD-7.

It just kind of jumped out at me.

That is some messed up, for real!!!

Syl

cantleave

What a f*cked up cult we all belonged to!

snowbird

So sad.

Syl

sd-7

Actually, Syl, you just reminded me of a song, called "I Am Sad, So Very, Very Sad". And it goes like this:

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO SAD!!!

Thank you. But it's not your fault. The number of horrible WT quotes to be found in the 1950s is staggering. There's a great article in '55, I think, that utterly debunks that 'we never claimed to be prophets' crap. But this one you found ranks pretty high on the Disgust-O-Meter. Let's keep it on the Discussed-O-Meter, nonetheless...

--sd-7

sd-7

But I think it's a side-effect of being so fixated on the use of legal terminology. It probably just bled into this particular article. Using legal terms enables them to remain emotionally distant from the implications of what is being said. Not that they really need any help in that area.

--sd-7

blondie

Actually I think this is referencing the practice of paying a bride price which is practiced in some parts of Africa (other countries). The WTS has additional info on this later on in its publications.

http://www.watchtower.org/e/19980915/article_01.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_price

Bride price, also known as bride wealth, is an amount of money or property or wealth paid by the groom or his family to the parents of a woman upon the marriage of their daughter to the groom. (Comparedowry, which is paid to the groom, or used by the bride to help establish the new household, and dower, which is property settled on the bride herself by the groom at the time of marriage.) In the anthropological literature, bride price has often been explained in market terms, as payment made in exchange for the bride's family's loss of her labor and fertility within her kin group. The agreed bride price is generally intended to reflect the perceived value of the girl or young woman.

The same culture may simultaneously practice both dowry and bride price. Many cultures practiced bride price prior to existing records.

In parts of Africa, a traditional marriage ceremony depends on payment of a bride price to be valid.

snowbird

Here is the article in all its inglorious sadness.

Syl

Mad Sweeney

It is a VERY typical, VERY OLD school view of marriage as ownership. The Borg, even in 1952, was operating around 100 years behind the rest of civilized society.

Weird Statement In QFR Article, 11-15-1952

Share this