Marriage Consummation - emailed question has me stumped (page 3)

DeWandelaar

@XBEHERE indeed... "I do not know what is more scary, the fact that we lost a nuclear bomb or that it happens so often we actually have a term for it"

It sounds like she was just trying to remain chaste. I remember that was a problem in Russell's day. Sisters would marry and then put it on lockdown. Remember girls, " Lady on the streets, Moabite in the sheets."

DD

adamah

Even if they didn't explain their rationale, the elders likely found his story implausible, or pursued the line of reasoning that SOMEONE ELSE in the KH might be stumbled if he wasn't DFed, as if he'd found the perfect loophole (esp if he was obstinate and argued his defense a bit too strongly, reflecting a lack of accepting wrongdoing, and thus being unable to show repentance; maybe the wife told a different story, or they were gunning for him anyway, esp since the guy sounds like he's a bit "too meek").

You cannot win in a kangaroo court...

Frazzled UBM

adamah - I think you give the elders too much credit. He had told them previously that the marriage hadn't been consumated but they wouldn't do anything to help so it seems a bit rich to suggest that they didn't believe him after he left her. Fraz

DesirousOfChange

I heard of a similar situation where after the marriage (two older JWs) the wife asked her elder-son about getting it annulled as the older dude couldn't consumate it even with the blue pill. She had no idea the marriage would be without wood. Elder-son told her "too late, you're married".

Greatly appreciate what you do, Paul.

Doc

DeWandelaar

Saddening isn't it? Finally getting married and then you do not get to unload the gun or blow the whistle... it is really a shame

konceptual99

At what moment is it the point of no return? The test seems to be whether it is the signing of the wedding documents, or going back to the honeymoon suite? I would imagine a person could pull out of the marriage during the reception, and not get disfellowshipped later for adultery, but once they have spent the first night together that is the point that they are considered married. (If they pulled out of the reception, they would have trouble over breaking a vow instead.) It seems it is not the sex act, but the imagined sex act of the first night that cements it in the eyes of the elders.

There was a couple in Hobart congregation that went for the honeymoon and came back separated. They were told they were not free to remarry, and are both single to this day, well into their 60's. The rumour is he is gay, and realised/admitted that on the honeymoon.

As soon as they have said their vows and are announced as married then they are married in the eyes of WTS. I've never heard of a circumstance where the couple have broken up after the vows but before the talk ended, or before signing the register but I would bet my life they would be considered as married in the latter example. The former example is a tricky one but surely is pretty much non existent in reality.

Consumation has nothing to do with it unless there is some bizarre rule that we've not come across. If they broke up at the reception and then one slept with someone else then it's adultery in the eyes of WTS. The elders might refer a situation like that to Bethel for clarification but the marriage contract had been entered into. I can't recall seeing anything that suggests the perception (real or imagined) that a couple have consumated the marriage affects the situation as far as adultery and freedom to remarry is concerned.

besty

Sadly the instances of bridesmaids being shagged by the groom at the reception is almost non-existent at JW weddings.

DATA-DOG

What else can the Eldubs really be expected to do? They cannot make decisions on their own, and they have no real training. In a sense the BOE's seem to act as an authority unto themselves, but they usually follow the legalistic course. So although they seem to have some independence to make decisions, it really only goes so far. They cannot go beyond pre-set parameters. In a legalistic, high control group, the weakest conscience wins. In the end they follow a pattern, the same ultimate pattern that guides the WTBTS, legalism without mercy.

I wonder why a marriage cannot be dissolved if the State allows it, especially if no scriptural laws are broken? If your mate cheats and you re-consumate the marriage, that is considered forgiveness. The bond of " one flesh " was broken by the offender, and it was up to the non-offending mate to make that union again or not. So if that bond of "one flesh" never took place, then only thing left is a legal arrangement in the Country you live in. If the superior authorities allow it and you were never "one flesh", there should be no reason why the relationship cannot be dissolved. In essence you would have been dating without a chaperone for years if no sex to place.

The Elders should just say, " We are not the masters over your faith."

DD

Paralipomenon

I can think of two things.

1) Would the ex-Wife have admitted to never having sex? Or would she have lied out of embarassment or revenge?

2) More likely, the Elders thought he was trying to play the system and didn't believe him. They are enforcers, even if they believed him, if people thought they could just claim they never had sex and get a free pass on remarriage that would be preferable to the status quo of having an affair to get a divorce.

Marriage Consummation - emailed question has me stumped

Share this