by confusedandalone 27 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
About 10 minutes ago a neighbor asked me about a friend who is a witness and said at one of their church meetings it said that they can only seperate under EXTREME abuse not just abuse.
I have not been to a meeting in a long time and I do not know aboput this or if it is true. Does anyone know what article this was in so I can print it and give it to them. They are highlyy upset by this and I want to stoke the fire
Steve hit Selma for 17 years and then became a witness himself.
thank you thank you thank you
Yes, they always precede the word "abuse" with "extreme" when discussing "allowed" reasons for separation.
The fact that WT ties the hands of an abused mate with the qualifier "extreme" is intrusive at best. In practice, this qualifier makes it very difficult for an abused person to leave the relationship, as at the very least the person leaving will be judged, and often they are shunned or disciplined by the elders for not following "scriptural" guidelines. Note the liberal use of qualifying terms WT uses:
*** lv pp. 220-221 The Bible’s View on Divorce and Separation ***
In certain extreme situations, some Christians have decided to separate from or divorce a marriage mate even though that one has not committed fornication. In such a case, the Bible stipulates that the departing one “remain unmarried or else make up again.” (1 Corinthians 7:11) Such a Christian is not free to pursue a third party with a view to remarriage. (Matthew 5:32) Consider here a few exceptional situations that some have viewed as a basis for separation.
Willful nonsupport.
A family may become destitute, lacking the basic essentials of life, because the husband fails to provide for them, although being able to do so. The Bible states: “If anyone does not provide for . . . members of his household, he has disowned the faith and is worse than a person without faith.” (1 Timothy 5:8) If such a man refuses to change his ways, the wife would have to decide whether she needs to protect her welfare and that of her children by obtaining a legal separation. Of course, Christian elders should give careful consideration to an accusation that a Christian refuses to support his family. Refusal to care for one’s family may result in disfellowshipping.
Extreme physical abuse.
An abusive spouse may act so violently that the abused mate’s health and even life are in danger..."
---
This leaves it open that if a mate is suffering "only" minor physical/mental abuse, they are not free, under WT rules, to divorce/separate without suffering some discipline.
The other result is that, in WT's eyes, the person is not free to remarry if they separate/divorce for anything other than adultery, which means, if they desire to remain a JW in "good standing", it is likely they'll never enjoy a meaningful relationship in their life with a person of the opposite sex....ever.
While at one level JW literature deplores domestic violence, at another, it speaks glowingly of dedicated sisters who courageously and prayerfully endure years of domestic violence and their violent spouses see the error of their ways and even become Witnesses. How happy this makes Jehovah and the angels! What a marvellous witness! What a fine example such sisters are! And on and on.
...endure years of domestic violence and their violent spouses...How happy this makes Jehovah and the angels!
---
Hey, for a god that sanctioned wholesale genocide in the OT, what's a little domestic abuse? Small potatoes, my friend, small potatoes.
Apparently, god likes it when Selma "takes one for the team"...and of course, Richard Cranium "Steve" will undoubtedly make a fine elder one day....
This post set me to looking at a passage that in the past the borg used to use as a sort of scriptural precedent for giving permission to some sister to leave her husband. It is/was 1 Cor. 7:13, the part that says that if he is agreeable to dwelling with her, she should not leave him. What the borg did was sort of reverse the passage and say that if the man was not "agreeable to dwelling with her" by his conduct, she can leave. They especially interpreted this as applying to "apostates." They reasoned that if a man had become so spiritually threatening to her (you know, by attempting to share things like TTATT!), he was by his conduct not "agreeable to dwelling" with her, and for her own spiritual safety, and, of course under the elders' direction, she should leave him. As I recall, they also applied this passage to "extreme" physical abuse.
Now I don't know how public this all was. It may have been only in the elder's book or in KM school, etc. I just don't remember.
Anyway, the revised NWT now says "agreeable to staying," so who knows what motivated that? Maybe they're trying to extend the above application somehow??
I stayed with my abusive first husband longer because I told myself the abuse was not that bad. After all, I had no broken bones, only bruises. When I was examined by a doctor after I left, I was a roadmap of bruises, all different stages and colours. The doctor would ask, "When did you get this one?" and "This one?".
I was very, very fortunate to get out when I did. The abuse was escalating from every few months, to every week, to every other day. I was kicked in the shins for not "walking right". Random objects were thrown at me in a fit of pique.
Demeaning, horrible, triple yes! Was it EXTREME abuse? No-one should ever have to ask that question.
CONFUSED- Good thread. Good for you that you are informing your neighbors about these horrid policies regarding JW abuse. People need to be informed about this. I had an older JW sister who was abused for years by her idiot JW husband and all the elders told her was " you aren't being submissive enough, it must be making your husband mad. " I mean- how much physical and mental abuse can one person take ? Or better yet- WHY should they be expected to endure it ? They shouldn't be made to endure it- and that's the problem. Too much interference and control from the WT Society and their appointed elders
