You May Now Embrace the Bride!

by jp1692 22 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  jp1692

  Just yesterday, a PIMI JW that I've known for years told me that at the end of a wedding they recently attended in Pennsylvania, USA, the "Brother" that officiated the ceremony concluded by saying to the bride and groom, "You may now embrace the bride." And they did.

  No kissing. Just a hug.

  AWKWARD!
  

  I've been out of this cult for over a decade, so I don't know much about the latest in JW wedding ceremony protocols or practices. And in many ways I don't really care, but I am curious: Is this a new thing among JWs everywhere, or is it just a local aberration?

  Even the PIMI JW that told me about it thought it was weird. (Yes, they actually used the word "weird" to describe how they felt about this.)
• 

  sir82

  It's been a while since I've been to a JW wedding, but I've never ever heard of this.

  It's not hard to imagine, though, some little podunk town with a something-seriously-stuck-up-their-collective-patooties BOE making up a rule: "no kissing allowed in the Kingdom Hall! Think of the children!"
  
• 

  jp1692

  sir82: "no kissing allowed in the Kingdom Hall! Think of the children!"

  That's ironically funny, but very likely true. I've been involved with more than a few "something-seriously-stuck-up-their-collective-patooties BOE" that seem to forget how children are made!

  Personally, I've only made two children, but I certainly have enjoyed practicing!
  

  
  
• 

  blondie

  I wonder why hugs are allowed when the WTS says even marriage mates "might" only be allowed to hold hands (discreetly, that is no one sees them doing it) at the meeting but not embracing each other, isn't that a hug?

  *** w09 11/15 pp. 6-7 par. 19 What Do Your Prayers Say About You? ***

  There may be a proper time and place for some actions that would be inappropriate at a Christian meeting. (Eccl. 3:1) For instance, suppose someone sought to have all in a group link arms or hold hands during such a prayer. This might offend or distract some, including visitors who do not share our beliefs. Some marriage mates might discreetly hold hands, but if they embraced each other during public prayer, those who got a glimpse of such conduct might be stumbled. They might think or get the impression that the couple was focusing on their romantic relationship instead of reverence for Jehovah. Out of deep respect for him, let us therefore “do all things for God’s glory” and avoid conduct that could distract, shock, or stumble anyone.—1 Cor. 10:31, 32; 2 Cor. 6:3.
• 

  Biahi

  sir82, you know they don’t care about the children! They discuss seriously inappropriate sexual things in the meetings. Can’t wait til someone still attending says a 6 or 7 year old gives a talk on masturbation or oral sex. Lol
• 

  Pete Zahut

  "I now pronounce you Husband and Wife....you may now Fist Bump the Bride....Oh and for Gods sake....please don't throw any rice ! "
• 

  jp1692

  Blondie, quoting the WT: "This might offend or distract some ... [and] those who got a glimpse of such conduct might be stumbled."

  We all remember how often the Don't Be Stumbling Others dictum was trotted out by the WTBTS whenever they wanted to control or eliminate a behavior they didn't like. And as much as it seemed like a good idea, it never really worked out that way.

  Why not?

  In one of his books (sorry, but I don't have the reference handy) Ray Franz observed that the inevitable end result of applying this indiscriminately is that the people with the weakest consciences—those that are the most easily offended—end up being the ones that determine the culture of a congregation.

  So instead of having the more mature, balanced people setting the tone and standards of the group, it is set by the least mature and most unbalanced individuals.
  

  Let's review: It's a cult!
  
• 

  jp1692

  Biahi: They discuss seriously inappropriate sexual things in the meetings. Can’t wait til someone still attending says a 6 or 7 year old gives a talk on masturbation or oral sex. Lol

  I was the Theocratic Ministry School Overseer for 14 years.

  Whenever we would have a talk like this I would always either take it myself or assign it to an elder even if the instructions said that particular talk should be assigned to a young person.

  Once, on a talk about masturbation, the elder I assigned it to tried to call me on it. The conversation went something like this:

  Uber Elder: Why'd you give me this assignment? The instructions said it should be assigned to a youth or newer person.

  JP: Yeah, I know, but can you imagine a child talking about masturbation in front of the entire congregation? It'd be embarrassing. Besides, which child in our congregation do you think I should assign it to?

  Uber Elder: You should be following "theocratic direction," brother.

  JP: Right. I noticed you didn't answer my question. But since you brought it up, the "theocratic direction" for the TMS Overseer in situations like this is that I should use my discretion to assign "sensitive material" like this to a more experienced brother. And I figured you have plenty of experience with this subject.

  Uber Elder: What is that supposed to mean?

  JP: You know what it means.
  

  He just glared at me.

  I laughed and walked away.

  He gave the talk.
  
• 

  DATA-DOG

  Isn’t it ironic that the Rutherford influence ( no children/women are hanks of hair ) and the obsession on the appearances that may be given by normal displays of affection have created the marvelously repressed environment for pedophiles to flourish, which has lead to more scrutiny than holding hands could ever generate in a million years??

  They no longer have to worry about “appearances” because everyone will know what they actually are.

  Yay, legalism!!!

  DD 😇
• 

  zeb

  embrace not kiss.

  Dear God they would s*** through their necks if they could just to be different.

  Its control control control..