MARKING TALKS

by diamondblue1974 12 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  diamondblue1974

  There used to be a practice where the elders would announce that a talk would be a marking talk and that it would relate to marking someone for some actions they have taken. The marking would be anonomous and i remember a great deal of confusion being created when a talk was given because the congregation didnt realise who they should or should not talk to....(i know it sounds ridiculous)

  Does this still go on? what is the scriptual basis for this action? and doesnt it sound like disfellowshipping has gone down the same ambiguous route?
• 

  LittleToe

  I don't recall it ever being announced as a "marking" talk in any of the congregations I attended.

  I do, however, recall one such talk during a meeting where a Ministerial Servant was announced as being taken off (likely due to non-attendance of meetings). His wife (who still regularly attended) was frantic that an association may be may between the two, and about five minutes after the close of the meeting the PO had to get up on the platform and announce that the two were unconnected. It was painful to watch, and just drew even more discussion on who the talk was actually about.

  They still have talks on specific subjects, after a DF'ing.
  I understand that there was a whole series of talks given on apostacy, after I DA'ed
• 

  diamondblue1974

  The same thing used to happen with us too...an elder had decided to have a rest...(he was 94) and earlier there was a disfellowshipping talk too...both were unconnected to each other but this time there was no clarification given and this caused some hurt for both his wife and his family...

  Still what can you do?
• 

  mama

  oh yes, marking talks, does lead to confusion doesn't it. i have heard more than a few. they are usually given about young unbaptized kids here that the elder parents think are a bad influence on their sweet good children, we all know the elders kids are usually the worst,lol. As far as i know, they are still given here in canada. i think its the elders way of trying to show control over ppl they have no control over, the unbaptized.
• 

  Wolfgirl

  They gave a "marking" talk about me about a year or so before I left. A big, finger-pointing talk about not dating people who weren't yet baptised. With all the gossip in the congregation, everyone knew it was about me.
• 

  diamondblue1974

  I had the same thing happen to me; feeds the gossip really doesnt it Wolfgirl?
• 

  IP_SEC

  Ive never seen a marking talk have a good effect on a cong. They are just cutting and clear enough to hurt people and ambigious enough to cause a lot off talk and misunderstanding

  It promotes

  1. Gossip, because everyone start talking about who and what.

  2. Slander, since people are guessing about what happened they fill in the gaps from the platform with there own imagination.

  3. Hurt feelings

  4. They perpeuate the paranoid feelings of the GB
• 

  rebel8

  I don't remember them making an announcement that "this will be a marking talk". I do remember them having talks on certain topics after they announced so-and-so was reproofed, DAd, or DFd. And then there were "local needs talks", which were billed as such on the schedules and the Elders would use the time to discuss any issues arising locally. That's all I can remember.

  What would be the point of calling it a "marking talk"? If the person's name isn't being mentioned, then no one is being marked, really. Maybe instead they should make those giant scarlet letters and force the "weak" ones to wear them around the cong. That would clear up the confusion.

  (Back to reality....I think they called it "marking" because anyone within the cong who knew about the wrongdoing would be aware that the wrongdoer was put in his place.)

  Of course, there aren't enough letters in the alphabet to accomodate a scarlet letter system.
• 

  Doubtfully Yours

  This still goes on. As a result, there's somewhat confusion among the rank and file and the 'spiritually weak' ones, group which I'm very much part of, get the shunning.

  DARN!!! I haven't done a thing wrong yet, just that I hate all those boring meetings and wasting my time in field service. Other than that I'm such a good egg!!!!!!!!!!

  DY
• 

  ezekiel3

  True story, the source has been verified:

  In 2003 a local needs talk was given. The introduction was strange and ambiguous, but as the talk progressed it became apparent that sexual predator was the subject of the talk. No name was mentioned, however the elder stressed that no children should be left unattended in the restrooms or parking lot. The congregation was freaked.

  Still without mentioning a name, the elder "consoled" the congregation that the person was not an active JW and that the elders would be keeping watching out for them.

  Then the talk took a strange turn toward bestiality. Most people had a "Huh?" expression on their face as the elder uncomfortably hurried through the Bible's take on animal sex. Still, all paticulars were left out of the talk so that the only real advice was "hide your children from the boogie man."

  After the meeting, the elder was mobbed with questions. Still taking the attitude, "If you know, then you know" attitude common with marking talks, it was mentioned that a young man once associated with JWs had been arrested for raping a horse.

  Sure enough the local paper had a piece on it and fully disclosed the name and events as disclosed in the police report.

  Now who did the community a favor, the newpaper or the anonymous "marking" talk??