Thank you all very much for your input.
There actually isn't (unless I am missing something) a quote that says 'inactive JW's who marry in churches will be disassociating themselves'.
Look;
"... clearly established ... joined another religion ... intends to remain with it..."
As 'marriage is a divinely instituted arrangement' and as the form of words used is the same as JW's use, the marriage is not a false religious act, regardless of celebrant or locale. There is no descrete act of worship.
Being present when a priest prays is also not a DA/DF offense, I know that a capricious bunch of assholes could do me, but then they could anyway.
It is in a different country 600 miles away from the last meeting I attended, no local JW's know me, there is no possible stumbling with someone so long inactive.
If anyone makes a big deal out of this in my family it is not about following the letter of the law. They are making up their own minds as they have the freedom to attend if they so wish - and threatening me over the DAing hindering family relations is sheer poop as they would have to start that themselves. Bunch of superfinefuckingapostlefreaks.
I've not rattled their little cages of belief, just made it obvious I don't live in them and am willing to talk about things if they so wish provided I am actually free to talk. They learnt rapidly this was a fair arrangement they could live with, but stayed away from questions as it was too uncomfortable getting answeres when they did ask them.
If they do this that arrangement is off. Whether they will listen to it or not, if this goes through I will rattle the cages of my entire family, all three generations, especially of those most salvagable, my nephews. My dad can kiss his sweet little patriarchy goodbye.
The shits have not at ONE point even said a thing about how this would make my fiance feel, or her family.
Well, having been too stunned to react when my dad dumped this in my lap dropping me off for the train am now sitting on the letter I've since written for a few days to see how I feel when I've reflected more. Here's a few extracts;
The thing I find worst, is I know perfectly well this is not a result of any direct council in the Bible or even in the literature of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Nowhere does it say that a JW cannot attend a church wedding – it is a matter of conscience. Please demonstrate if I am wrong.
Thus we cannot but take it very personally indeed that your conscience condemns us in this way. There will be no Witness or worldly person stumbled by your attending the church. You do not have to participate in the service, merely attend. There is no risk of you “accidentally” taking part in the service.
...
In fact, the only “stumbling” that will occur as a certainty is the one you will cause xxxxxx entire family. Whilst you might feel in your own minds that you can justify such a hostile and alienating action, I can assure you they will be aghast. I take it you intend to speak to xxxx and xxxx yourself and explain the slight you are offering their family? That your scruples will not permit you to celebrate the marriage of their daughter and your son? Or did you expect me to do the dirty work for you?
...
Jesus attended weddings of the day despite his standing in opposition to the Jewish ‘church’ of the time. We can infer he didn’t just turn up for the feast (although he certainly contributed to the celebrations) but went to the ceremony as well. He consorted with tax collectors, prostitutes, spoke to Samaritan women when it was almost unthinkable he do so. If being a true Christian entails imitation of Christ, I would ask you to explain how not attending the wedding of your son is Christ-like?
...
As regards disassociation; you are more-or-less threatening that if I went ahead I would be formally disassociated (thus forever souring the joy of family association from your perspective) after 13 years of inactivity, an action that could only come about from your pursuing it. The article you gave me makes very specific use of the word “join”, and as such I find your interpretation of this is actually running ahead of what is intended, as the only ‘thing’ I will be joining is xxxxxxx, in matrimony. By all means provide me with other references if you feel they support your stance better.
