Do they get apology for getting the boot?
Now question all these people disfellowshipped for adulteres marriage
by Yomama 9 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Simon
Don't be daft, the WTS admit they were wrong?
No, they were right then and they are right now, even though things changed in between. Oh, and God's standards never change. Don't think about it too much.
-
waton
Y: give the details of that allegedly changed " adultery brings disfellowshipping " ruling.
remember Jesus said, that even a persistent adulterous "eye" will have you regret that in "gehenna. " where their worm die est not"
PS: I remember from the 60s, where an innocent mate had to give consent to a guilty party in a scriptural divorce to remarry.
A vengeful, hurt victim, of a scoundrel, could ruin that one's life, by withholding that permission, if the wrongdoer wanted to "survive Armageddon", wanted wt's favour. a kh wedding.
-
punkofnice
I'm not sure I actually understand the question.
However, the WBT$ will never apologise for anything.
-
waton
However, the WBT$ will never apologise for anything.
pon, they might stoop to " we regret having printed that."
they stoop to conquer.
still waiting for yomama to fill in the details too. -
Vanderhoven7
Has the new light on remarriage been published already? Any quotations from WT publications available?
-
road to nowhere
Old light was it had to he heterosexual intercourse, later softened to include sodomy and homosexual. And the innocent mate could forgive blocking a WT sanctioned marriage.
Still a person can not be appointed with a living ex unless the adultery is proven. I have seen several elders put back in while the ex wife was still warm.
-
under the radar
The gist is that 3 things constitute a "scriptural" divorce with the freedom to remarry: (1) adultery, (2) a legal divorce, and (3) rejection by the "innocent" mate. One of the things that establishes this rejection is the "innocent" mate's signing of the divorce papers.
They do include a blurb that in some lands it might be possible to sign documents establishing child custody and support but still not consenting to the divorce. I've never heard of this in actual practice, and only a fool would agree to the obligations of a settlement without the freedoms of a divorce.
Anyway, once such a "scriptural" divorce occurs, remarriage by either party is considered scriptural, legal, and binding. Therefore, it would not be considered an adulterous marriage.
That said, the adultery still must be dealt with and the "guilty" mate may not be considered "exemplary" for a long time, even if not disfellowshipped or after being reinstated. He or she would not qualify for any congregation "privileges" till they have "lived down" their guilt and shame. Big whoop.
-
Yomama
New light
-
StephaneLaliberte
The act of getting remarried without scriptural grounds is still considered adultery and you'd likely be disfellowshipped as getting married is obviously a premediated act. However, the change lies in this:
Old spouses can no longer invalidate the new marriages by forgiving their spouse for "cheating" on them. The old marriage is broken and the new one is valid regardless of what they think. That does not change the fact that the person who got married again without scriptural grounds will face a Judicial Committee. Nice weeding gift. :)