Marking has it's merits IMO

by enoughisenough 11 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • enoughisenough
    enoughisenough

    It would appear the context about marking has to do with those who are not working to feed themselves, but meddling in others business. A couple more scrptures to think about. Jesus said not to throw your pearls before swine. ( so you have to identify the swine ) This scriptual thought: having a form of godly devotion but proving false to it's power and from these turn away. So, how many of us have not been around toxic people and we just don't socialize with them. We may be cordial if we have to work with them, but are we inviting them over to watch a game? I actually marked someone. TRUE STORY TIME One Saturday I went to the Hall for service. Only me and 3 brothers showed up ( so all in same car group ) before the service meeting, I told the brother who was going to handle it that to fit the 3 brothers in the car and I would make other arrangements- I wasn't going in service with Brother C. Later that day, the COBE called me and questioned me about my stand to which I replied the Bible says a man who doesn't take care of his own is worse than an unbeliever. Bro C had 4 sons and his first wife died. He married a sister to have a mom for his boys. Her youngest child at home (15 years old ) was let to go live elsewhere.) Bro C was married to the woman more than 30 years. The sister ended up with altzheimers. She was in her 80's and if memory serves 10 his senior. He got fed up with her and took her to her Son's home. Her son worked with me. He got home from work and found her wondering around bewildered not knowing where she was or what was going on. So she came to live with her son. Bro C took an ad out in the local paper he wouldn't be responsibe for any debt other than his own. She had no income save her Social Security going into a joint bank account that she now had no access to. Her Son, daughters and myself pooled money to open a bank account for her so her social security could go into that account.In a short while, Bro. C ended up in the hospital and an elder who visited him at the hospital called and said for her Son to go and get her personal things from the house or he ( bro C )was throwing them out when he got home the next day or so. Her Son sent me to do it because he didn't want to give his stepdad cause to find fault with him.

    ( I should mention Bro C had been an elder in a congregation in another town but had not yet been reappointed in the local one after his move. He was a pioneer.) Her four grown children had meetings with the elders in protest of the way the man was allowed to just kick his wife of 30 years to the curb. He may would have been relieved of being a pioneer, but he died of a heart attack after working all day in Kingdom Hall remodel. The publishers in that local hall all looked up to him and his reputation was sound- the rumor going around : it was her children who took his wife from him! I heard it a few years later when talking on the phone with a publisher there after I had moved away. They were telling me what a wonderful brother he had been and how his wife's kids hijacked her away from him. I set the person straignt. I had gone and got her clothing and her family albums from the home so he wouldn't throw them out Do you think this can get worse? such hippocrites! Bro C left the home to one of his sons who was and elder and who had worked in oversea's branch work,etc. Bro C, brother-in-law was a CO. After Bro C death, Sister C's daughter took her to the house to get a few more things that had belonged to her mother. The wife of the Son had already packed up to take a nice set of dishes Sister Cs children had bought for her. Those dishes were not easily retrieved, but the daughter did manage to get them . Sister C picked up a candle stick to take, but the son who had inherited the house wouldn't let her have it because he said it was a friend of his that had given it to her to start with. The CO brother in law was siding with the Son in not allowing Sister C to take many things. So you have a pioneer elder son and his pioneer wife and a CO brother-in-law and his wife stealing from a dear ( and she was a lovely person ) old sister with altzheimers, not letting her take items that had been hers when she lived in the home.) Do I want anything to do with these people? absolutely NOT -had a form of godly devotion but proved false to it's power. ( I was in 50 years-I don't have good stories to tell) Did you ever "mark" anyone? Why?

  • FragrantAddendum
    FragrantAddendum

    mark sanderson

    also the rest of these guys

    they're all "mark" to me

    i'd recommend anyone avoid them like the plague

    they put poison in the water they're serving

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot

    Just goes to show that even when you have the most altruistic intentions, using authoritarian measures inevitably puts the monsters in charge.

  • FragrantAddendum
    FragrantAddendum

    i agree that the monsters are in charge in wt-land

    (and many other places)

    while i would never consider charles taze russell "altruistic"

    (that dude was sooooo gross and conviving)

    many of the rank-and-file people who were duped into following him

    have had the most altruistic intentions

    i think this picture is quite telling

    they make russell look like a tamer of zombies

    https://archive.org/details/a-great-battle-in-the-ecclesiastical-heavens-rutherford-1915/page/43/mode/2up

    but he's actually the monster


  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    Choosing not to be close with toxic or harmful people is very different from a church labeling individuals with different opinions as persona non grata. It's a cult spin on normal behavior.

  • FragrantAddendum
    FragrantAddendum
    Choosing not to be close with toxic or harmful people is very different from a church labeling individuals with different opinions as persona non grata. It's a cult spin on normal behavior.

    yes, yes, yes...this⬆️

  • enoughisenough
    enoughisenough

    peacefulpete, I agree with your statement...a church shouldn't label people...but on an individual basis, we may have good reason to avoid certain one. " and from these turn away". I wouldn't condone labeling others who have a different opinion either. We should have different opinions. But let's not make excuse for really bad behavior. The JW strain gnats and gulp camels. Talks about dress, grooming, education, fine homes and autos, expensive vacations, etc informed whom you may want to mark, and at the same time if serious wrong was committed, it was keep your mouth shut and don't bring reproach on God's organization. ( don't inform the congregation if there is a pedo or a con artist among them.)

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    Just adding that some "serious wrongs" are just opinions. That's why I used the expression 'harmful' rather than wrong. 'Wrong' is a word like 'sin' that can be a blanket term that really only has specific religious meaning. To a Catholic, it is a 'serious wrong' for a bishop to appoint woman priest. But to others it might be progress.

    That said, it is a citizen's responsibility to protect the vulnerable. "See something, say something", doesn't just mean terrorists.

    Drop the whole loaded 'marking' lingo. Its cult-speak.

    BTW.... 2Tim was not written by Paul, and the reference to Jannes and Jambres (3:8,9) are characters from Jewish Midrash on the Moses story. It is one of a number of examples of writers referencing noncanonical works as "scripture" (vs 16).

  • Gorb
    Gorb

    This sect is a clusterfuck.

    Gorby

  • blondie
    blondie

    Good?...not if you are the one marked, by an individual (it's supposed to be their personal judgment, but then they tell others to do the same) and not using the name...well, the jws excel in gossiping, the real version or their "expanded" one with few facts). It is not a good thing.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit