Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 07-15-2012 WT Study (STRAINED MARRAIGE)

by blondie 38 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  carla

  I have a question about this quote (and can you tell me the year of this book? is it still 'current' light?)---

  " **True Peace book tp chap.13p.148par.16***

  What if the laws of a land do not allow any divorce, even on the ground of sexual immorality? An innocent mate in such a case might be able to obtain a divorce in a country where divorce is permitted. Circumstances, of course, may not allow for this. But some form of legal separation may be available in one’s own country and could be sought. Whatever the case, the innocent mate could separate from the guilty one and present definite proof of Scriptural ground for divorce to the overseers in the local congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. What if that person were later to decide to take another mate? The congregation would not act to remove him as an adulterer if he provided the congregation with a written statement containing a vow of faithfulness to the present mate and an agreement to obtain a legal marriage certificate if the former marriage should be dissolved either legally or by death. Nevertheless, the individual would have to face whatever consequences might result as far as the world outside the congregation is concerned. For the world does not generally recognize that God’s law is superior to human laws and that human laws have only relative authority.—Compare Acts 5:29.

  To me this sounds like they are advocating poligamy. The couple cannot legally obtain a divorce but could shack up with a new 'spouse' with just a written note about the previous mates infidelity?!?

  Is this still used today?--

  *** w77 3/15 pp.183-184 par.31***

  “I, ......., do here declare that I have accepted .......... as my mate in marital relationship; that I have done all within my ability to obtain legal recognition of this relationship by the proper public authorities and that it is because of having been unable to do so that I therefore make this declaration pledging faithfulness in this marital relationship. I recognize this relationship as a binding tie before Jehovah God and before all persons, to be held to and honored in full accord with the principles of God’s Word. I will continue to seek the means to obtain legal recognition of this relationship by the civil authorities and if at any future time a change in circumstances makes this possible I promise to legalize this union.

  “Signed this .......... day of ........., 19..... Witnesses to my signing: .....................................”

  good grief! really?! So again they are not legally married but will try real hard to get legally married? Wow!
• 

  blondie

  At one time the Catholic Church held sway in many countries determining what the secular laws on divorce were based on the church's rules. Catholics could not get a divorce "scripturally" per the church. To get around the Catholic law the WTS provided this procedure which did violate Caesar's law because the WTS felt they were above the secular law and the Catholic law. This way jws could do an end run around the church and give the authority to regulate marriage to the WTS. At the time this prevailed in countries like Italy, and Catholic countries in the Americas.
• 

  Room 215

  "Linda,* a zealous Christian and a devoted mother, watched helplessly as her baptized husband unrepentantly embarked on an unscriptural path and was disfellowshipped."

  What was he df'd for? Taking swimming lessons at the local YMCA?
• 

  blondie

  Exactly, Room 215!

  I found this quote for something I posted long ago.

  Even if the non-jw should become a jw later, the jw will be marked permanently as a person who would deliberately disobey God (actually the WTS) and will be considered permanently flawed spiritually.

  *** w89 11/1 pp. 21-22 par. 17 Do Not Yoke Yourselves With Unbelievers ***What about situations in which a brother or a sister married an unbeliever, and now both of them are serving Jehovah? Still, Jehovah’s principles were violated. Does the end justify the means? Illustrating God’s view of those who ignore his counsel is the case of the Jews returning from Babylonian captivity. When some took pagan wives, Bible writers Ezra and Nehemiah pulled no punches in condemning their actions. Those Jews "acted unfaithfully," committed a "great badness," and incurred "guiltiness." (Ezra 10:10-14; Nehemiah 13:27) Something else to consider: When we ignore God’s counsel, we may wound ourselves spiritually, scarring our conscience. One sister whose unbelieving husband eventually became a believer said: ‘I am still dealing with the emotional scars. I can’t tell you how awful I feel when others point to us and say, "But it worked for them."’
• 

  QueenWitch

  paragraph 8 - if a JW couple decides to separate and divorce, obviously they aren't spiritual enough.

  Really? who says? They can be the most spiritual people in the world. What if they just aren't clicking anymore? Is it better to be married miserably?
• 

  NOLAW

  carla sorry but you are talking b******t.
• 

  eva luna

  Carla. In some countries, it can take along time for a divorce.

  In Italy, it took 5 years for a legal divorce. You could have a nice Kingdom Hall wedding after 2 years. Sign a paper stateing you aggree to legaly marry when you get your divorce (5 years) . If you changed your mind and didnt marry it was an auto DF. The 'brothers' thought this was a loving provision from Jah.

  That changed about 10 years ago, when the waiting period went down to 2 years.

  I was very suprised to hear this. Having had a scriptual divorce, getting counceled for talking to someone on the phone, because I had 2 months pending for my final decree. But can you imagine waiting 5 years.

  IMO, I dont think they were advocating poligamy.
• 

  trebor

  "It is half Pharisaic Jewish and half Paulian Christian"

  Wizard, that is quite possibly the best, most succinctly and non-offensive way to describe the group...without the "cult" stigma.

  Don't get me wrong, I still think they're a cult, but that is a very nice way of describing the organization; well put.
• 

  BluesBrother

  In my experience, the WTS has no ability to help married couples, unless they are committed Pioneers who love what they do, then they understand them.....

  The WTS seems to think that a successful marriage is one that lasts and they both turn up at the Hall. In my Elder years I knew those who were just hanging on for the New World to make home life better. They are still waiting.

  They seem to think that it is all the fault of one party being outside.. I have known devoted couples where she was in and he was not. I know committed dub couples who can hardly stand each other.

  The example in par 19 is astounding! She wanted to seperate due to financial non-support and endangering spirituality. Then she says that the poor man was in "unwise business arrangements" . He went broke. He was skint! Where was the loving wifely support? It says "We stopped communicating" so how was he absolutely endangering her spirituality if they never talked? But they are still together . Does she deserve him?

  They seem overly concerned with their own reputation. "Observers may think that they do not practise what they preach" P 7..

  We should trumpet the fact that CHARLES TAZE RUSSELL & J F RUTHERFORD divorced or were seperated - that hardly got the Organization off to a good start!
• 

  carla

  I'm not talking bullshit.

  From a non jw (never been) standpoint that is exactly what it sounds like, you can still be legally married to the spouse you no longer want but can shack up with your new honey? and the wt will consider it 'married'?! hmm, sounds like poligamy to me. That is exaclty how the Fundy Mormons work it, they are legally married to one woman and have multiple wives that are only sanctioned by the 'church'. Not to say that the jw would be having anything to do with wife (or husband) #1 but what if? what would the elders do then? Technically they would still be married to spouse #1 but the wt sanctioned spouse #2, what if spouse #2 wasn't working out so well and spouse #1 started looking pretty good again? How would the elders handle that conundrum?

  They may not be advocating poligamy but read those quotes to a never been jw and see what the response is, it probably will be much like my response.

  I cannot imagine having to wait 5 years for a divorce nor do I suggest one should have to.