The JC won't tell the wife about her husband's adultery

by purrpurr 22 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  sir82

  On the other hand, the elders

  may find that while the husband did confess adultery

  to his wife, he did not tell her the full extent of his

  wrong conduct and left out important information

  that the wife should know. The elders should not pro-

  vide this confidential information to the wife, but

  they can suggest that she speak with her husband

  again.

  Full context shown above. The "elders do not provide confidential information" is in the context of "the husband DID confess, he just didn't give all the details."

  Lots of complaints on this board about how elders stick their noses into private family matters. And when there is written direction to NOT stick their noses into private family issues (well, relatively, anyway) there are still complaints.

  There's plenty of stuff to criticize them over. When they (more or less) get in the neighborhood of being right, we should look for legitimate gripes instead.
  
• 

  TD

  its not uncommon in jw marriages where infidelity has occurred for the “innocent” partner to withhold sex for a prolonged period of time as punishment, keeping the mate who cheated a hostage.

  Yes. My observation as a pretty good people watcher, is that it's not uncommon in JW marriages for one partner to withhold sex, essentially holding their partner hostage for any reason they please.

  JW's hold the ridiculous notion that infidelity is the only legitimate cause for divorce and therefore fail to understand that fidelity is a coin with two sides: If, as a precondition of marriage, your spouse had to agree to only eat food that you provided, then you would have ethical obligation to feed them.

  Allowing them to starve would be an extraordinary display of bad faith and every bit as wrong as infidelity itself.
  
• 

  _Morpheus

  Full context shown above. The "elders do not provide confidential information" is in the context of "the husband DID confess, he just didn't give all the details."
  Lots of complaints on this board about how elders stick their noses into private family matters. And when there is written direction to NOT stick their noses into private family issues (well, relatively, anyway) there are still complaints.
  There's plenty of stuff to criticize them over. When they (more or less) get in the neighborhood of being right, we should look for legitimate gripes instead

  JW's hold the ridiculous notion that infidelity is the only legitimate cause for divorce and therefore fail to understand that fidelity is a coin with two sides: If, as a precondition of marriage, your spouse had to agree to only eat food that you provided, then you would have ethical obligation to feed them.
  Allowing them to starve would be an extraordinary display of bad faith and every bit as wrong as infidelity itself.