Another marriage bites the dust thanks to the WT

by boyzone 23 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  boyzone

  I've known about this couple for a long time and attended their bible studies on occasions. Susan, the wife, has been having a study with the Witnesses on and off for 16 years, (yeah I know, one of very useful wet day pioneer calls where we all bundle round Sue's house for coffee and still count the time) The sister whose been studying with them was a sooper -uber pioneer sister with a hard-line and total Society view on everything. Sue's husband Keith has always been polite and interested in what his wife was learning but he loved his beer, fags and christmas too much to take it seriously.

  Finally a few months ago Susan caves in to the pressure from uber-sister Christine and wants to get baptized. Hubby isn't happy about this as it means giving up christmas with the family (they've got 3 kids in their teens). A huge row ensues and she leaves him and goes to live in a flat below uber-sister taking one of the kids with her.

  Whilst still apart, Sue got baptized last assembly. Keith tries to make amends but she's having none of it. You see, according to the WT she's entitled to leave her husband because he likes his beer and christmas so therefore he's classified as a "spiritual danger" to her. She's fed more tripe from the uber-sister and loads of plaudits from the congregation for "standing up for righteousness" and "taking Jehovah's side" which fuels her determination to keep him at arms length.

  Sick of all this rubbish and deeply hurt, Keith doesn't want her back now - ever.

  Sue came into the coffee shop where I work yesterday. She was on her own and kept glancing across at me (I've lost 70lb in weight and look a bit different) I tried to catch her eye to give her a smile but she was busy texting and kept her eyes lowered. She looked unhappy.

  I know all this because Sue's best friend Brenda is an aquaintance. Brenda doesn't recognise the person Sue has become and doesn't know what to do especially as Sue is avoiding contact with her. (Brenda is a born-again Christian and deemed another "spiritual danger")

  So there you have it. Another marriage destroyed by the rules of the Watchtower, a marriage thats lasted well over 20 years and was doing ok until the tentacles of the Society began to tighten their grip.
• 

  TheOldHippie

  "according to the WT she's entitled to leave her husband because he likes his beer and christmas"

  Extremely wrong. She is not. Please state where in the WT you have found such a statement.
• 

  teel

  I feel sorry for them. My marriage is going down the drain too because of the WTS. The Society was proven time and again to destroy marriages. They keep printing success stories in their magazines to prove that they're not, but the fact is most of the time the only way a marriage can survive if they both convert.

  It's like the husband becomes a drunkard, the wife wants to divorce him, then the husband argues: it's not the drink that's breaking our marriage! Come be a drunkard too, then we'll understand each other, and be happy!
• 

  dozy

  Sad situation - seen this sort of thing happening a few times over the years. The uber-pioneer takes a woman under her wing as a "project" and manages to disrupt a whole family.

  The JW grounds for separation are below - whether or not this strictly applies in this case , I don't know...

  w8811/1p.22par.12 When Marital Peace IsT hreatened

  Absolute

  endangerment of spirituality also provides a basis for separation. The believer in a religiously divided home should do everything possible to take advantage of God’s spiritual provisions. But separation is allowable if an unbelieving mate’s opposition (perhaps including physical restraint) makes it genuinely impossible to pursue true worship and actually imperils the believer’s spirituality.
• 

  sir82

  "Absolute endangerment of spirtuality" - what the heck does that really mean?

  Nobody really knows, so it can be contorted to fit whatever situation is deemed appropriate.

  I can easily see some "uber-pioneer", out of earshot of any reasonable elders, telling her study: "your husband is clearly a spiritual danger to you! Now, I can't tell you to leave him, but if you value your relationship with Jehovah and want to make real spiritual progress (wink wink)...."

  It's a vague, wishy-washy, meaningless term - and intentionally so. It's sort of like "loose conduct" or "causing divisions" - it's a wild card that can be trotted out to fit a situtation in order to get the result you want.
• 

  garyneal

  It's a vague, wishy-washy, meaningless term - and intentionally so. It's sort of like "loose conduct" or "causing divisions" - it's a wild card that can be trotted out to fit a situtation in order to get the result you want.

  Like "sexual harassment." I think terms like that get to the point to where it is totally subjective and is defined by what 'offends' someone.

  I feel so sorry for the married couple, I can only imagine what the husband went through emotionally dealing with such an unreasonable person that his wife has become. In the end, I guess, it works out for the best as he is now free to find someone who will be a better spouse. However, that is still cold comfort for him and especially his kids. I would be interested to see how the wife's life unfolds in her service to the organization.
• 

  BluesBrother

  Hmmm. Like The Old Hippie I cannot help wondering if there is not more to this than meets the eye. The WTS does not encourage wives to split from husbands except in the most extreme circumstances, especially a "study"

  Before she was accepted for baptism she had to answer this question, among the 80.

  What does The Bible say about married people seperating?

  Answer] What God has yoked together let no man put apart Mark 10.9

  A wife should not depart from her husband 1 Cor 7

  In my day I doubt that we would have accepted for baptism a candidate who had left her husband/family on such a flimsy excuse.
• 

  Mary

  You see, according to the WT she's entitled to leave her husband because he likes his beer and christmas so therefore he's classified as a "spiritual danger" to her.

  Hmmm.....I'd venture a guess that in this particular situation, it's probably the influence of the Super-uber Christian sister who's calling the shots on this one. Generally, the Society urges a woman to stay with her unbelieving husband, unless of course he's an "apostate" or physically tries to prevent her from attending the meetings. Sounds like this guy is definitely upset about the changes in his wife, but did not try to physically restrain her from going to the Hall. They like you to stay married on the off-chance that hubby will one day "see the light" and convert himself.

  It sounds A LOT like what happened to my grandparents' marriage. They had met at a dance hall in the 1920s and were happy until my grandmother started listening to Rutherfraud on the radio in the 1930s. That was it. She became a very, very dedicated Witness from that moment on until the day she died. While she was a wonderful grandmother, the religion basically destroyed hers and grandpa's marriage because he got shoved to the backburner, they never went out dancing anymore or did anything together anymore, largely because grandma was either at the meetings or out in Field Serve-Us. Grandpa wasn't really against the religion---he just didn't give a damn about any religion and started spending more time down at the parlour, playing cards, gambling and drinking.

  They never divorced, but the religion definitely caused a huge strain on their marriage and neither of them were happy.
• 

  jefpainthorse

  My wife played the "endangerment card" I think it was an early trial balloon case... someone in Brooklyn wanted to see how far this could go. I had to call my Uncle to see what that was all about in 2002-3 when it happened. He researched what the WT had on file to that date... and his take was that "spritual endangerment" did no apply in our situation. I read what he sent me and came to the same conclusion

  Ex vanished for over 6 weeks. Pals were hiding her and denied any knowlege of were she was at. People I never met sent letters to her lawyer for a Protective order against me (quickly over turned by my counsel).

  I even had several hours of phone converstation with a local elder who thought the whole notion was a scam... but was not willing to pursue the situation on my behalf. I was also "denied" a face to face with the Circuit Over-furher to discuss the situation.

  At least 15 people from her Congregation tried to clean the house out while I was home. That required Police intervention to make them leave. That incident did not go well with the Judge when it was discussed in Chambers. A letter was produced from a "freind" that noted my "observed" threats and abuse. That person was un willing to be sworn and testify... so that lie was quickly put to rest by the Judge. The elders, however, did not care to read transcripts when offered about the falsehoods a member were willing to offer against me.

  This woman walked away from 17 years and left a child at home. She finally admited that "she just did not want to be married anymore" and is still in good (somewhat restricted... she cannot Pioneer, whippee!) standing at her KH. I think they did not let her comment at meetings for a few weeks too.

  Living well is the best revenge... God Bless you and hang in there... it gets worse before it gets better.

  ~j
• 

  sir82

  The WTS does not encourage wives to split from husbands except in the most extreme circumstances, especially a "study"

  "The WTS" would never be so stupid as to put anything so incendiary in print.

  But plenty of individual JWs, such as uber-pioneers, uber-elders, uber-busybodies, would be only to happen to "connect the dots" and tell someone, "as loving counsel", what they ought to do.

  My point in my earlier post is that while the WTS pays lip service to "we don't break families up", they intentionally word things vaguely, with a wink and a nod, knowing full well that the more zealous of their adherents will be only too happy to tell others what they "ought" to do.