Would You Outlaw Jehovah's Witnesses If You Had The Power? (page 9)

XQsThaiPoes

Maybe I dont get what you are saying. What does the state have to do with the a small communites oppinion of divorce?

minimus

You say the state has policies on marriage and divorce---not JWs. What I mentioned are JW policies on marriage and divorce. JWs don't always care what the state says about anything.

XQsThaiPoes

So how is this avenue policable many churchs dont recognize gay marriages or cerimonies. At least JWs recognize the person is married.

minimus

....Like I said......Tell me, are you still a JW? Do you support them? Frankly, I don't know if its your writing style, but I don't see where most of your comments are coming from.

onacruse

We are deluding ourselves to think that we have "freedom."

By definition (of our finite minds), "freedom" is Infinity/God.

Therefore, anything we say, think, feel, do...is never really "freedom."

minimus

"Shunning is a personal freedom".....is this the comment that you are referring to?

blondie

JWs don't always care what the state says about anything.

min, do you remember when the WTS tried to get around the law against divorce (even from adultery) in certain countires (mostly Catholic). The WTS allowed brothers and sisters to register their "divorce" with them pending a change in the law in that country, at which time they had to register their divorce with the government.

w85 11/1 p. 31 Does a "Declaration Pledging Faithfulness" in an existing marital relationship have the same permanence as a legalized marriage?

This has reference to the special arrangement granted only in those countries where divorce from a previous mate is not allowed under the law. Christians are appropriately interested in this matter, for God?s Word shows how seriously he views the marital arrangement. In fact, the apostle Paul wrote: "Let marriage be honorable among all, and the marriage bed be without defilement, for God will judge fornicators and adulterers." (Hebrews 13:4) Hence, let us note the sort of situation giving rise to this question:

The truth finds a couple in a marital relationship that cannot be legalized, and yet Christian baptism is desired by one or both of the parties. The declaration is a pledge of faithfulness to this marital relationship until such time as it becomes possible to legalize the union according to the law of the land. The Watchtower of March 15, 1977, page 183, suggested how the declaration might be worded and stated: "Such declaration is viewed as no less binding than one made before a marriage officer representing a ?Caesar? government of the world."?See Jesus? words at Matthew 22:21.

However, what is the situation if "Caesar" changes the divorce law, as recently happened in Italy? Since it is now possible to obtain a divorce from a previous mate, the baptized Christian living in a marital relationship as covered by the "Declaration Pledging Faithfulness" must immediately take steps, according to the declaration, "to obtain legal recognition of this relationship." The first step would be to obtain a divorce from the previous mate. The next step would be to have the marriage with the present mate legalized. Even if the present mate is an unbeliever, that one would need to consent to this legalizing of the marriage. If the unbeliever refused to do so, the Christian mate would have to separate in order to maintain an approved standing in the congregation. The reason for this is that the "Declaration Pledging Faithfulness" can no longer be recognized by the congregation as valid, because a way has now been opened up for legal marriage.

However, when that way opens up and the two actually do get married, such legal marriage is binding permanently, in contrast to the "Declaration Pledging Faithfulness," which was a solemn interim arrangement.

Would You Outlaw Jehovah's Witnesses If You Had The Power?

XQsThaiPoes

minimus

XQsThaiPoes

minimus

onacruse

minimus

blondie

minimus

1914

frankiespeakin

Share this