Why Marrying An Outsider Is NOT A Disfellowshipping "Offense"

by Divergent 23 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Divergent

  So yeah, I was thinking about this. Marrying an unbeliever is considered to be WRONG, but at the same time, it is NOT a disfellowshipping "offense". Why is that?

  Well, the reason is simple: there is more to gain than to lose by NOT disfellowshipping. If they did disfellowship everyone who married "out of the truth", there is a high chance that such ones WON'T be coming back and the org would lose them forever. So why not take the softer approach - make it permissible, with the hope that the believing one can eventually bring their mate AND any children that they may have into "the truth!" This would be an acceptable solution for many single ones (especially sisters) who are not able to find a marriage mate within the org. So while the org considers marrying a "worldly person" to be wrong, they still allow it!
• 

  The Searcher

  Past experience has demonstrated that it was the J.W.'s rejection of the elders' counsel [command] not to marry the "unbeliever" which brought retribution, rather than the marriage itself.

  I know of a J.W. who has been "marked" and shunned by many in the congregation for getting engaged to a non-J.W.
• 

  NewYork44M

  I cannot recall anyone getting disfellowshipped. However, these ones were "marked."
• 

  Divergent

  The Searcher:

  I know of a J.W. who has been "marked" and shunned by many in the congregation for getting engaged to a non-J.W.

  NewYork44M:

  I cannot recall anyone getting disfellowshipped. However, these ones were "marked."

  Marked, shunned, etc. but not disfellowshipped. That's my point. They are doing something which is considered to be "wrong", but the loophole is that it's not a disfellowshipping "offense" due to the reasons I mentioned above
• 

  eyeuse2badub

  So why not take the softer approach - make it permissible, with the hope that the believing one can eventually bring their mate AND any children that they may have into "the truth!"

  So why not allow polygamy? By marrying multiple non-jw's, a jw could bring in a multitude to the borg!
  

  just saying!
• 

  Divergent

  It all depends on how you interpret the bible. If you want to, you can find a justification for almost anything, including polygamy
• 

  Vidiot

  @ Divergent...

  I am 100% positive that the GB has suggested making it a DFing offense in the past, and put a pin in it, on more than one occasion.

  But it's like trying to dump wedding receptions and anniversaries. There's only so much you can take away from the peasants before they revolt, and in most cases, the pickings are just too slim for the "sisters".

  And yes, a truly determined theologian could manufacture a "Biblical" justification for pogo-sticking naked and high under a full moon. :smirk:
  
• 

  exjwlemming

  It's all about supply and demand. Sisters outnumber the brothers. It's about keeping the sisters in a small pond and elevating the spiritual qualifications of prospective brothers. Sisters are told to look for strong spiritual men as their husband heads. Sisters are dangling "carrots" and motivate the brothers to reach out for MS and Elder privileges. Brothers can then have the pick of the pack if their show themselves to be spiritual men. I know too many spouses that appeared spiritual to score a young, attractive bride or groom. Once the deed was done, they morphed into a controlling and abusive spouse.
• 

  wisdomfrombelow

  So why not allow polygamy?

  Where is polygamy shown to be unacceptable for Christians? It used to be permissble for a Jehovah's Witness to have more than one wife in countries where the practice was legal. I think Knorr changed the policy in the 50s so that it became a disfellowshipping offense. But I believe there was a "grandfather clause" where those who had multiple wives were allowed to keep them.
  
• 

  scratchme1010

  Well, the reason is simple: there is more to gain than to lose by NOT disfellowshipping. If they did disfellowship everyone who married "out of the truth", there is a high chance that such ones WON'T be coming back and the org would lose them forever. So why not take the softer approach - make it permissible, with the hope that the believing one can eventually bring their mate AND any children that they may have into "the truth!" This would be an acceptable solution for many single ones (especially sisters) who are not able to find a marriage mate within the org. So while the org considers marrying a "worldly person" to be wrong, they still allow it!
  

  Actually, I think the reasons are even simpler. They can get sued to their wazoos if they disfellowship people who marry whoever they decide to marry and get disfellowshipped for it. Marriage is a legally binding contract too, protected by the state. People in USA obtain over 1100 government benefits, entitlements and legal protections simply by getting married, and people cannot discriminate based on who they decide to marry.