Well, I've never found any scripture that specifies that "only in the Lord" explicitly means "only the inhumane/unloving members of a militant legalistic book publishing company started a mere 150 years ago by a man named Russell with a penchant for occult practises such as numerology and pyramidology and a definite fiscal real estate advantage to be gained from self advertising and inbreeding, namely - more members=more money".
>Besides, if by some stretch, of their narcissistic hallucinations, marrying "only in the Lord" did mean that and only that, then I wonder how come they don't consider all marriages "outside the Lord" "scripturally" invalid to begin with, therefore rendering your previous "marriage" "scripturally" null and void, and your subsequent divorce of no consequence. (Hence, negating any need for a "scriptural" divorce.) In which case, his yes meaning yes and his no, no, (another scripture) renders him a liar for the things he promised you and is now taking back. Not to mention if he said he would that is tantamount to an engagement, no? And if he reads up on his literature he might find out how serious engagement is viewed. Not to mention (in case you two had sex) that to hear the watchtower literature tell it, once an engaged man takes a woman to his home they already are considered married. Not sure if this dude had sex with you at all but if so and if he insists on going by the JW interpretation of that old law book, it might be good to look into what the watchtower says about how once a man takes a woman home they are married before god and merely have to go once a year to register their marriage with the civil government?
(Beyond that I can't help much because it makes no sense to me to live by rigid and inflexible interpretations of such an out of date law book from backward days when women were societally considered mere property (not persons) and the laws were simply necessary to regulate men from bashing each other in as they fought over said property (see example of David killing Bathsheeba's husband in order to own her himself). Apparantly the bible god saw fit once upon a time to change and make divorce okay, at the request of mere men (and the man merely had to say I divorce thee a few times and it was done he was rid of her none of this bureaucratic waiting period and only men could do the divorcing of course, you know, back before women were persons with any rights whatsoever). The same bible god permitted one set of behaviors for how many wives and mistresses god-ordained kings could have, (even kill to have and still regain favour with a little penitance), and later a different set of rules for how many wives christian men desiring positions of leadership in the congregation may have. And according to the JWs that same god sees fit to frequently direct/permit the JWs to change their interpretations of scripture back and forth and to and fro, one set of interpretations to permit them ample leeway in the running of their organization that affects peoples lives in very real and personal ways and another for how their followers must sacrifice everything and "wash up to their elbows" in a myriad ways. It seems to me you are being told here that thousands of years later that same everchanging god has no flexibility unless the jw religious corporation okays it having only heard this mans side of the story and with no regard for you? And that if your circumstances don't fit their current set of rules and regulations you must live your days in loveless misery? Oookayyyyy.)
>I don't know about all that ancient scripture quoting and the multitude of interpretations depending on which modern day "god-inspired" organization you ask, but here is a quotation that has stood the test of time in my life when I'm faced with messages from a loved one like those your intended seems to be sending you:
"If you love him, let him go."
